Yard Clippings
Jackson, Mississippi has recently passed an ordinance (either that, or they are finally enforcing it) that makes it a violation to leave a car parked in your front yard. Doing so is punishable with a fine- basically a traffic ticket.
Having just taken several law school courses, I'm drawn to the consitutionality of this measure.
Looking to property law, it is clear that a landowner has an unqualified right to use his land as long as he doesn't create a nuisance or endanger the public welfare. (Astute followers of the blog will remember that I used the latter reason to support bulldozing of the buildings in New Orleans.)
In a Supreme Court decision, the court determined that a neighbor erecting a toilet on a ten-foot pole is not a nuisance, but an aesthetic choice. Thus, it is clear that the court is willing to continue the precedent of only declaring something a nuisance in extreme circumstances, thereby validating the rights of landowners to use the land as they see fit. In no court in America would a judge hold that a car sitting on a lawn constitutes a nuisance.
Covenants are another matter, but a discussion concerning them is not pertinent here. The ordinance is city-wide and authoritative in its substance, not a communal or democratic agreement among landowners.
Likewise, parked cars that are locked pose no looming threat to the public welfare. If this were so, it would be illegal to park cars anywhere, not just on the yard. Moving a car to the grass does not enhance the danger of its existence one iota.
That said, it is clear why the ordinance was approved- the city council wants to increase property values and clean up the area. While these are certainly noble and laudable goals, they overreach in their power. As I've said before, the law can only force people to do that which is minimally good- it cannot exact (or demand) nobility from its constituents. We are still free (thank God) to make dumb, irrational decisions that hurt no one.
If I had a home in Jackson, I would be sorely tempted to pave the entire front yard, stripe it like a parking lot, and fill it with random cars. (The neighbors who are getting fined would be glad to use a space, I'm sure.) I doubt there's an ordinance that limits the size of a person's "driveway." If so, that would be unconstitutional as well. Then I'd line the front with American flags, completing the used parking lot decor. This, I'm fairly sure, would be entirely legal- but parking one car on the yard is not.
Where's the sense in that?
I hope someone with some money and time gets a ticket on purpose and then appeals the eventual decision to the Supreme Court on constitutional grounds. This is surely a violation of civil liberties.
Having just taken several law school courses, I'm drawn to the consitutionality of this measure.
Looking to property law, it is clear that a landowner has an unqualified right to use his land as long as he doesn't create a nuisance or endanger the public welfare. (Astute followers of the blog will remember that I used the latter reason to support bulldozing of the buildings in New Orleans.)
In a Supreme Court decision, the court determined that a neighbor erecting a toilet on a ten-foot pole is not a nuisance, but an aesthetic choice. Thus, it is clear that the court is willing to continue the precedent of only declaring something a nuisance in extreme circumstances, thereby validating the rights of landowners to use the land as they see fit. In no court in America would a judge hold that a car sitting on a lawn constitutes a nuisance.
Covenants are another matter, but a discussion concerning them is not pertinent here. The ordinance is city-wide and authoritative in its substance, not a communal or democratic agreement among landowners.
Likewise, parked cars that are locked pose no looming threat to the public welfare. If this were so, it would be illegal to park cars anywhere, not just on the yard. Moving a car to the grass does not enhance the danger of its existence one iota.
That said, it is clear why the ordinance was approved- the city council wants to increase property values and clean up the area. While these are certainly noble and laudable goals, they overreach in their power. As I've said before, the law can only force people to do that which is minimally good- it cannot exact (or demand) nobility from its constituents. We are still free (thank God) to make dumb, irrational decisions that hurt no one.
If I had a home in Jackson, I would be sorely tempted to pave the entire front yard, stripe it like a parking lot, and fill it with random cars. (The neighbors who are getting fined would be glad to use a space, I'm sure.) I doubt there's an ordinance that limits the size of a person's "driveway." If so, that would be unconstitutional as well. Then I'd line the front with American flags, completing the used parking lot decor. This, I'm fairly sure, would be entirely legal- but parking one car on the yard is not.
Where's the sense in that?
I hope someone with some money and time gets a ticket on purpose and then appeals the eventual decision to the Supreme Court on constitutional grounds. This is surely a violation of civil liberties.
posted by Yorick at 6:25 AM
1 Comments:
Hey, I'm game to fight it. Except that I don't live in the city limits of Jackson. Maybe we could get the Dean to cooperate with us and I could park my trunk-full-of-dope-looking 5-different-color (and one of those is primer) 68 Catalina on the grass in front of the Law School and challenge the city to tow it and fine me.
Loxley
Post a Comment
<< Home