Where there are state troopers who would actually respond to such a thing.

This Redditor gets it.

But it also seems that parking, stopping and standing are separate legal concepts and the statute only prohibits parking there. I rarely see someone park, shut off the engine and then leave the car in a bike lane. So most have them haven't technically "parked".

She's not the guilty party here (she called out the situation, at least). Do you have any info about her legislative solution?

I stand corrected. That's a truly horrible law; a bike lane is not at all safe if you have to leave it to get around cars stopped in it. That's how that 3 year old in Chicago got killed.

As far as I'm aware, that "they have 20 minutes" is both informal and bullshit.

Edit: I've subsequently been advised that the 20 minute rule is actually formal and bullshit. I apologize for the error.

Police can ticket cars, too. They just choose to pretend they don't see the problem.

But at least you saw a seagull!

>In an interview, Gym blamed the administration’s lack of enforcement. “The situation has gotten completely out of control,” she complained.

This is the story of 2023 Philadelphia in one paragraph.

If you just walk around and look up, you'll often see something cool in Philly.

We're obviously not ever going to agree on this, but there are words for people who demand benefits from the public stock for themselves that they deny to others and they aren't very flattering.

So those who already own houses get preferential treatment over everyone else? It's like US housing policy in microcosm; it has a certain elegance to its unfairness.

>if you keep allowing more people into the neighborhood with cars it becomes impossible to ever find a spot.

That's absolutely true, but the solution isn't to force new construction to provide parking; that gives an unfair subsidy to people who have lived in the neighborhood longer (and choose to own one or more cars). They've been able to store their stuff in the street for essentially free for decades, and everyone who lives in the neighborhood has an equal moral right to the free property storage (even if they just moved in yesterday).

Let builders build what they believe they can profit from, and manage the parking separately. Either increase the cost of a parking permit until you get the number of cars that street parking can sustain (the capitalist solution) or implement a lottery and tell people who lose that they just aren't allowed to park their car on the public street (my preferred solution, but politically untenable).

In terms of "fairness to the people who already live there", the sooner we lost this idea that their house came with guaranteed free and convenient parking the better.

I follow all that (I commuted for four years to Blue Bell with no car). But the only way your parking can be guaranteed is if you park on your own property. My house didn't come with a parking space (which wasn't a surprise to me, because I have eyes), so I park on the street, same as everyone else. But it would be ludicrous for me to expect other people to not build homes because I need to be sure I can continue to park my car on the public street with no issue. Street parking belongs to no one (not even homeowners, long-time residents or those who own traffic cones).

I stand by my original point that our plans for where to house people should take no account whatsoever of where anyone is going to store their car when they're not using it. People will either find a place or make other arrangements.

I've got my days that I just can't wrap my brain around the strangeness of insisting that nothing can be built unless it offers a ton of places to store your private property when you're not using it. This is one of those days: I really can't understand why people demand free abundant storage space for their stuff and then insist homes can't be built because it will interfere with that.

The fact that this article talks about the building and doesn't even mention the parking once. Ignoring that aspect is a good step toward denormalizing the idea that every building must provide parking.

And this you didn't get a picture of?!?!?

Nope; streets are for cars, sidewalks are for people. I learned that before I even went to kindergarten.

They only failed to park in the bus stop because that would have been farther from the front door (it's across Master Street from that store). Laziness trump's all other considerations.

Parking on the sidewalk is and effective way to avoid enforcement here in Philly, that much so true. I'm an eternal optimist, though: I vaguely hope that that car wasn't on that sidewalk for more than the two hour non-resident limit.

I would have preferred the park in the open spot about 10 feet from there and walk the extra distance, but I'm a filthy pedestrian lover.

That's how I initially became aware of this fact. I was pretty shocked when I first heard it.

Yes, OP: listen to this Redditor, who knows far more than me.

From my understanding, police officers do not have a legally enforceable, affirmative duty to help even if they see a crime being committed right in front of them. It's hard to know we could sue them for under those circumstances.

As long as the trash is in enclosed bags (not that Trader Joe's shit), you're cool.