[HN Gopher] Philly pays $30K to two 'courtesy' tow victims, but ...
       ___________________________________________________________________
        
       Philly pays $30K to two 'courtesy' tow victims, but class-action
       suit continues
        
       Author : jawns
       Score  : 85 points
       Date   : 2022-09-16 20:48 UTC (2 hours ago)
        
 (HTM) web link (www.inquirer.com)
 (TXT) w3m dump (www.inquirer.com)
        
       | bell-cot wrote:
       | > Problem is, the city doesn't have a modern, reliable way to
       | track the vehicles' new locations, leaving owners wandering the
       | streets for days or weeks, looking for their cars.
       | 
       | They could do vastly better than the status quo with century-old
       | multi-part paper form technology. "White Copy - Central PD Tow
       | Office", "Yellow Copy - Precinct PD Tow Clerk", "Pink Copy - DMV,
       | to mail to vehicle owner", ...
       | 
       | This kind of worse-than-brain-dead sh*t-show is why so many
       | people emotionally identify with "the government is the problem",
       | "de-fund the police", and similar slogans.
        
         | mjhay wrote:
         | > This kind of worse-than-brain-dead sh*t-show is why so many
         | people emotionally identify with "the government is the
         | problem", "de-fund the police", and similar slogans.
         | 
         | Those people are right. That is not just emotional, that is
         | rational - that is the only sane attitude towards the fact that
         | these groups with the power of violence over society are so
         | incompetent or even malicious.
        
           | eyelidlessness wrote:
           | Us people have some nuance and quite a bit of disagreement
           | amongst ourselves. Personally I'm all in on defunding the
           | police, but (I still feel weird saying this even after almost
           | six years as a former anarchist) I don't believe the
           | government is inherently the problem, even if this particular
           | implementation of it is obviously a problem.
           | 
           | Another version of government could and should use its power
           | to _prevent_ these kinds of abuses rather than enable and
           | benefit from them. But that form of government would look
           | radically different from the one we have.
        
         | bdhess wrote:
         | > They could do vastly better than the status quo
         | 
         | But why should they have to? It's 2022, get a LoJack or AirTag
         | for your private property that you leave lying around illegally
         | in public space.
        
           | travisjungroth wrote:
           | The cars are towed away from legal spots.
        
             | bdhess wrote:
             | I think the article misstates this. They're normally legal
             | spots, but at the time of the special event, they're not
             | legal.(Usually temporary signs are placed a day or two in
             | advance.)
        
               | jazzyjackson wrote:
               | if they were parked illegally, they would just be towed
               | 
               | they were "courtesy towed" because the space became
               | illegal after the car was already there
        
               | lostlogin wrote:
               | > (Usually temporary signs are placed a day or two in
               | advance.)
               | 
               | Based on the stories here, not not sure this is
               | happening.
        
               | eyelidlessness wrote:
               | Even if it is, that's not sufficient to inform car owners
               | to move their vehicles. Where I live, _all_ public
               | parking (whether you have a parking permit or park in
               | spots which don't require one) has a 72 hour limit. If
               | you put up temporary No Parking signs with less than 72
               | hours notice, you're guaranteeing many people will have
               | their cars towed inappropriately.
        
           | [deleted]
        
           | lostlogin wrote:
           | AirTags are a whole seperate rant - I am not the only user of
           | my car, but I can't share my AirTag.
        
         | seibelj wrote:
         | You get paid a fixed salary and can't make a penny more until
         | your union-negotiated contract says you can (more years of
         | labor). You basically can't get fired. Your job never changes
         | and you can't improve your job. You do the same thing day in
         | and day out waiting for retirement.
         | 
         | So you can screw with some people, maybe get a bribe to help
         | them. It isn't unreasonable to see why government employees are
         | unhelpful - the system is dumb, wasteful, and nothing they do
         | can fix it, and leaving the job means they will never have it
         | as cushy again.
        
           | _jal wrote:
           | > maybe get a bribe to help them
           | 
           | Can you point to any bribery for common, "retail"
           | interactions with local governments? Outside the south? I'm
           | actually curious, I didn't think most of the country was that
           | far gone yet.
        
       | rmatt2000 wrote:
       | I can think of a spec for a simple application that would fix all
       | the problems associated with "courtesy [sic] towing". However, it
       | also seems pretty clear that any city government that would
       | engage in "courtesy [sic] towing" probably has zero interest in
       | fixing it.
        
       | reactspa wrote:
        
       | buildbot wrote:
       | Do they use flatbeds for the AWD drive cars? If not then they are
       | causing huge amounts of damage to the differentials and drive
       | train...
        
       | donretag wrote:
       | This occurred to me in the 2000s in NYC. Repeated (I kept on
       | getting "disconnected") calls to 311 always led to an operator
       | that proceeded to victim blame me. "Are you sure you do not have
       | parking tickets?", "Are you positive you have no parking
       | tickets?".
       | 
       | There were "No Parking xxxday for repaving" that were posted in
       | the (somewhat desolate, few residences) area after I have parked.
       | Even after explaining this situation to the operators, they still
       | insisted that the city must have towed my car because I did not
       | pay my parking tickets. Three/four operators, same line. They had
       | no idea where they towed my car. It took my father and I over an
       | hour, splitting the streets, walking the neighborhood and finding
       | the car.
        
       | jtokoph wrote:
       | A similar thing happened to my wife and me during a vacation. We
       | had reserved a car via Enterprise Car Share (like Zipcar). When
       | we arrived to the designated car share space, the car was
       | missing.
       | 
       | We called Enterprise who said the car had been properly returned
       | by the previous customer days before, so it should be there. They
       | paid for us to get an Uber to another available car, so we were
       | only delayed and hour or so.
       | 
       | They did follow up with us and it turned out that the city had
       | done a "courtesy tow" because the car was parked on a parade
       | route the previous day. I'm not sure how they eventually found
       | it, but they said that they couldn't activate the GPS tracking
       | without delay and lots of approvals because of customer privacy
       | issues.
        
         | lostlogin wrote:
         | Done they put signs or cones up or something? It's crazy that
         | this keeps happening.
        
         | 14 wrote:
         | That is actually a bit reassuring that they can not just at a
         | whim turn on gps tracking.
        
         | abeppu wrote:
         | It's good if they can't restrict activating GPS because of
         | customer privacy issues but I would think the time between one
         | customer returning it and the next customer picking it up ought
         | to be fair game?
        
           | gruez wrote:
           | That would be the case if you thought it all the way through
           | and the manager had discretion, but what probably happened
           | was that the company had a blanket policy of "no activating
           | GPS trackers without director approval" that prevented that
           | from occurring.
        
       | chickenpotpie wrote:
       | The idea of a courtesy tow is such a violation of justice where
       | the government can dole out a punishment worse than the law
       | allows without a trial. The police are effectively the judge jury
       | and executioner. They find you guilty of some law, sentence you
       | to the punishment of finding your car and any consequences of it
       | being there, and execute it by hiding it. This is one of those
       | weird circumstances where I would rather just be charged with a
       | crime.
        
       | linspace wrote:
       | > Henin was placed in handcuffs because police in New Jersey
       | thought the car was stolen. That was because, months earlier, the
       | car had been courtesy towed in West Philly, and she reported it
       | stolen as police advised. Henin followed up with Philadelphia
       | police when she later found her car, but they mistakenly left it
       | in the stolen-vehicle database.
       | 
       | It could be the argument for a sitcom. Not funny in real life
       | when police is pointing a gun at you.
        
         | quickthrower2 wrote:
         | More like a dystopian horror movie
        
           | klodolph wrote:
           | I think I've seen this kind of farce happen often enough in
           | sitcoms. Odd Couple "My Strife In Court", Seinfeld "The
           | Parking Garage", The Golden Girls "Ladies of the Evening".
           | People are always getting arrested in sitcoms for dumb
           | reasons.
        
             | Pulcinella wrote:
             | This also happens in the opening of "Brazil" which is a
             | dystopian nightmare with a small amount of humor and plenty
             | of farce.
             | 
             | "Oops the dystopian government black bagged the wrong
             | person because of a typo. So sorry! Here's a check for the
             | inconvenience."
        
               | colpabar wrote:
               | The scene with the widow asking about her husband's body
               | is foundational in my distrust and hatred of bureaucracy.
        
         | renewiltord wrote:
         | They're police, mate. Like all government employees their
         | performance is somewhere between incompetence and ignorance
         | multiplied by authority.
         | 
         | Primarily their job is to be a resource in union leaders'
         | pursuit of power, a job they do with admirable skill.
        
         | 2muchcoffeeman wrote:
         | They didn't check the license and registration of the vehicle?
        
           | rmatt2000 wrote:
           | Who are you gonna believe? Two forms of government issued
           | paperwork, or your buddy on the other end of the radio? /s
        
           | sokoloff wrote:
           | For a reported stolen car/felony stop, it seems pretty
           | reasonable that they'd handcuff the driver before checking
           | the driver's license and discovering it matches the
           | registration.
        
             | DiggyJohnson wrote:
             | If the driver is otherwise complying and saying "this is my
             | vehicle, wtf are you doing?" then: no, I strongly disagree.
        
               | kube-system wrote:
               | Thieves don't usually say "you caught me!" when
               | confronted by police. They frequently claim they own the
               | stolen items.
        
             | eyelidlessness wrote:
             | After reading the article but before reading the comments,
             | I thought to myself, _people will defend all manner of
             | awful things, even when they're this clear cut_. Sure wish
             | I'd been wrong.
             | 
             | Being forcibly detained is traumatic. Especially when you
             | know you're being detained wrongly. I'm speaking from
             | experience here, and as someone who has received a
             | settlement in a wrongful arrest suit.
             | 
             | There's nothing reasonable about armed officers of the
             | state putting someone in handcuffs without any prior effort
             | to ascertain the appropriateness of that person being in
             | handcuffs. Asking for license and registration is
             | _routine_. If anything after that suggests they have
             | actually stopped a car thief, the _next_ appropriate action
             | _might_ be to forcibly detain them. It might also be more
             | appropriate to question them further without force.
             | 
             | Putting a car's rightful owner in handcuffs because their
             | car had been towed without their knowledge, and they
             | understandably reported it stolen when it wasn't where
             | they'd left it, and then they had the temerity to drive
             | their own car after it had been recovered, is cruel. All of
             | the prior facts would already be unbelievably stressful for
             | most people. And of course no random cop is gonna know all
             | of those prior facts, but that's why they should _ask
             | questions_ before acting.
             | 
             | Let me reiterate: being forced into constraints by armed
             | agents of the state who have broad authority, and get broad
             | allowance, to use their monopoly on violence _is
             | terrifying_. It's even more terrifying when you know you've
             | done nothing to warrant it, and especially when you're
             | being treated that way because of other wrongs done to you.
        
               | sokoloff wrote:
               | On the spectrum of police behavior, this is left of zero
               | for sure, but pretty benign and easy to understand.
        
               | eyelidlessness wrote:
               | After I posted my comment above, I had to calm myself
               | because I had a spike of anxiety remembering the details
               | of my own experiences with police aggression, and the
               | memory takes me far away from my body into a place of
               | distilled fear. I'm remembering more as I type this.
               | 
               | I think the word you're looking for is "comprehend". I do
               | comprehend why police act aggressively without cause or
               | warning. I don't think it's benign. I do think you're
               | very fortunate not to know that.
        
             | pcl wrote:
             | Years ago, I was pulled over while driving a rental car
             | that had been reported stolen by an earlier renter a few
             | weeks prior. I'm certainly glad that the officers in
             | Atlanta approached the situation professionally and without
             | any cuffs involved.
        
               | elliekelly wrote:
               | Was it a Hertz car, by any chance? Because I believe they
               | are currently being sued for doing that _thousands_ of
               | times.
        
           | quickthrower2 wrote:
           | It was reported stolen by the owner. Reread the article for
           | the full story on that.
        
             | jonas21 wrote:
             | Right, but they could have verified that the registered
             | owner and person driving the car were the same person.
             | 
             | However, since it was in a different state, perhaps the
             | registration database wasn't available - only the stolen
             | vehicle database was.
        
               | sokoloff wrote:
               | The article says she was handcuffed (detained); it does
               | not say she was arrested (which would be absurd).
        
               | jonas21 wrote:
               | The quote from the police chief implies she was arrested
               | (though it's in brackets, so it could just be sloppy
               | reporting):
               | 
               | > _"My sergeant on the scene received information from
               | Philly PD, who said, 'Go ahead. Lock her up. It's [a]
               | good [arrest],'" Long Beach Township Police Chief Anthony
               | Deely said in 2020._
        
               | sokoloff wrote:
               | This tweet suggests she was not arrested: https://twitter
               | .com/phillyinquirer/status/129427390187110400...
        
             | [deleted]
        
       | lolinder wrote:
       | > That's the Philly euphemism for what is formally known as
       | "relocation towing" -- when the police department, Philadelphia
       | Parking Authority, or a private towing company moves vehicles
       | from legal parking spots for special events, construction or
       | emergencies.
       | 
       | I can see needing to move a vehicle in an emergency, but for
       | special events and construction this shouldn't be needed in most
       | cases. The city knows months in advance the date on which the
       | streets need to be clear. They should plaster the neighborhood in
       | warning notices a month before the event, then go through again
       | the night before to check for stragglers who'd forgotten.
       | 
       | If people seriously end up thinking their car got stolen, there's
       | a _massive_ failure of communication. My thought should be
       | "oops, I forgot about the event", not "where the hell is my
       | car?!"
        
         | jffry wrote:
         | Maybe the spaces are posted as reserved, and "relocation
         | towing" is what happens if you're still parked there at the
         | reserved time.
         | 
         | In theory if the city had its act together and had a way to let
         | you know where your car had been put (and a process to ensure
         | it's not placed somewhere you'll get ticketed), this is a much
         | fairer option than carting cars off to an impound lot, which
         | are privately run and generally notoriously bad in terms of
         | hours / fees / ease of retrieving your car.
        
         | gshulegaard wrote:
         | As someone relatively new to Philly, I am not at all surprised
         | by the need for relocation towing. In the immediate
         | Philadelphia metro area, but outside center city parking is
         | extremely sparse. It's not uncommon for me to help squeeze
         | neighbors into barely large enough parallel parking spots (by
         | waving them in) at midnight. Some of these folks live more than
         | 6 blocks away and purportedly were looking for parking after
         | getting off work for an hour or longer.
         | 
         | Philadelphia is also the first place I have lived where parking
         | in the center median of major thoroughfares is normal:
         | 
         | https://www.google.com/search?q=philadelphia+center+median+p...
         | 
         | Speaking of, I live a block off South Broad Street (most of the
         | images in the link) and not too long ago there was a marathon
         | that required clearing of that street of all parked cars for
         | its entire length. It _was_ well communicated, well in advance
         | but you can imagine that if parking is tight when the street
         | side parking _and_ the center median is chalk full of cars,
         | relocating is difficult. I don't know if any cars were
         | relocation towed, but I know the night before the event I still
         | saw some cars parked on Broad.
         | 
         | I still think there are communications issues, the city should
         | have a way for owners to find their car. But I also think it's
         | a bit more complex than your first take. Communication is hard
         | and at the scale of Philadelphia I am not too surprised that
         | there are cases where things can go awry between all the
         | various bureaucracies you have to interact with in something
         | like this. I also think it's pretty reasonable that the lawsuit
         | is looking to force improvements, not do away with the system.
        
           | mindslight wrote:
           | Was this comment written by GPT-3, or is it simply FUD for
           | contrarianism's sake? Posted signs stating parking
           | restrictions is the standard way of communicating parking
           | restrictions, temporary or otherwise. The notice window
           | doesn't even have to be that long, although it's nice for it
           | to be so that people can plan ahead. For example, in Boston
           | it is illegal to park in the same spot for more than 72
           | hours, so the city puts up signs at least 3 days ahead of
           | time. If a car is still parked somewhere, it has either
           | violated the temporary restriction or the 72 hour rule. Also
           | if a car is towed, it's towed to a city lot rather than a
           | random street. Getting your car out of a tow lot sucks but at
           | least it's predictable. Problem solved - there is nothing
           | "complex" about this.
        
         | tylermenezes wrote:
         | > They should plaster the neighborhood in warning notices a
         | month before the event
         | 
         | I grew up in Seattle but lived in Philly for 2 years and this
         | was one of the strangest things to me. In many cases they don't
         | post _any notices at all._
         | 
         | I knew enough people who got "courtesy" towed with no records
         | that I added a GPS tracker to our car to make sure I could find
         | it.
         | 
         | See also: https://www.inquirer.com/news/courtesy-towing-south-
         | philly-p... https://www.inquirer.com/news/towing-philadelphia-
         | parking-au...
        
           | hinkley wrote:
           | Seattle, for anyone who hasn't lived there, has a set of
           | folding barricades marked 'No Parking' with a blank space to
           | put dates and times. I believe you can even go to the city
           | and borrow a set yourself for things like sidewalk repairs,
           | taking down a tree, moving vans, or having a forklift show up
           | to move something into your yard, though these seem to go out
           | pretty close to the event whereas I saw city ones show up two
           | weeks before something major.
           | 
           | From a smaller data sample, parts of Oregon also do this as
           | well.
        
         | ceejayoz wrote:
         | That's what happens in my area. Signs go up a week or so in
         | advance saying you'll be towed if parked there past date X.
        
           | avn2109 wrote:
           | The "posted signs" thing is an unimpressive solution in 2022
           | imho and they should really email you or text you "hey move
           | your car please" etc.
           | 
           | As a thought experiment, imagine that the city government was
           | motivated to find a car's owner for some reason, perhaps as a
           | suspect or witness of a serious crime etc. Meaning if they
           | have your plate number and think you're a murderer, they will
           | definitely find you and communicate with you (the message
           | that they communicate will be "come to the police station").
           | 
           | I claim this is a proof by construction that they could
           | communicate with you by some method other than posted signs,
           | if they actually wanted to. And they just choose to do the
           | laziest possible "post signs" solution because of basically
           | incompetence/laziness, not because there's no other way for
           | them to identify and communicate with a car's owner.
        
             | acomjean wrote:
             | In my city at least the weekly street cleaning requires you
             | to move your car weekly. So signs posted a week ahead are
             | typically not as bad. Though the police did once us my
             | apartment buzzer to tell me to move my car, it didn't
             | always happen (I've been towed twice in my 2 decades in the
             | city)..
             | 
             | Also when they tow you it's to a lot, they don't just dump
             | you on some other street like in Philly.
        
             | macksd wrote:
             | That said, it still seems helpful to know immediately as
             | you're getting the space what the timeframe is for leaving.
             | If the're going to start clearing the street in an hour,
             | I'll probably park elsewhere right off the bat and not wait
             | for an email.
        
             | thewebcount wrote:
             | How is the city supposed to know my cell phone number or
             | email? I don't generally give them out. I give out my
             | landline whenever I have to give out a phone number. And
             | heck, there are plenty of people in a big city like Philly
             | that don't have a cell phone, too. (And yes, some of them
             | have cars, believe it or not.) Plus cell phones break,
             | emails get sent to spam, etc. Putting a sign up at the
             | place where you are likely to do the illegal thing seems
             | pretty sensible to me.
        
         | kube-system wrote:
         | > They should plaster the neighborhood in warning notices a
         | month before the event, then go through again the night before
         | to check for stragglers who'd forgotten.
         | 
         | Did they not do this?
        
         | xattt wrote:
         | On-street parking is an absurd concept in itself. There are no
         | other social equivalents where you can occupy a general public-
         | use space for free (!) for several days (!) without facing some
         | form of consequences.
        
           | macksd wrote:
           | The side of the street is hardly general public-use. In most
           | places it's explicitly for parking. And many (certainly
           | almost all where I am, albeit not in a major city) parking
           | lots don't enforce time limits or ensure you're there for
           | some specific use of the space.
        
       | mbil wrote:
       | Ah yes, reminded me of when my motorcycle was parked near 7th and
       | South St. There was construction I guess, and my motorcycle was
       | apparently courtesy lifted to the sidewalk. I returned from
       | vacation to ~$700 of tickets for the bike being on the sidewalk.
        
         | johndoughy wrote:
         | Did you end up paying the tickets or fighting it?
         | 
         | Reminds me of when my motorcycle was towed from my apartment
         | complex. It was held by a private towing company, but for some
         | reason the city suspected the bike was stolen, so the tow lot
         | (allegedly) couldn't release it until the city completed their
         | 'investigation'. Meanwhile I was on the hook for every day that
         | it sat in the tow yard (not to mention the rental car to get to
         | work), but powerless to get it out. Eventually the city cleared
         | it and I owed like 2k. I desperately wish I fought it but for
         | some reason I just paid it...
        
           | mbil wrote:
           | I fought it which basically entailed me going to some city
           | government building and showing the guy I was out of town for
           | some of the days and so wasn't able to keep an eye on my
           | bike. He essentially told me to pound sand and so I ended up
           | paying it. The absurdity tempered the fury.
        
         | hayd wrote:
         | did you fight it?
        
       | daveoc64 wrote:
       | This is relatively common in the UK, although there are clearer
       | requirements to put up signs in advance of restrictions being
       | imposed.
       | 
       | London has a centralised system where you can check if your
       | vehicle has been removed to a pound/relocated:
       | 
       | https://trace.london/
        
       | abeppu wrote:
       | The article mentions two women who had each reported their cars
       | stolen after the "courtesy" tow which makes one wonder -- _is_
       | this theft? If not, why? Does it matter if it's done by a private
       | towing company?
        
         | impossiblefork wrote:
         | Here in Sweden it would have been a theft-adjacent crime which
         | is translated into English as 'criminal conversion', and it
         | seems that criminal conversion fits.
         | 
         | A crime where someone does something to somebody's property
         | without intending to actually take the property, or not to take
         | it permanently.
         | 
         | Not being familiar with this jurisdiction I can't say whether
         | that's the actual law though. Depending on how it's defined it
         | could easily be theft.
        
         | crazygringo wrote:
         | No it can't be _theft_ in a legal sense, since it 's legal per
         | statute. And no it doesn't matter if it's a private towing
         | company as long as it's acting on behalf of the state (which it
         | is/was).
         | 
         | But what the plaintiffs are arguing is that it's failing _due
         | process_ at the _constitutional_ level, which to perhaps
         | oversimplify means the city isn 't being responsible/fair with
         | its law.
         | 
         | Nobody disputes it has the right to move vehicles for
         | legitimate reasons (which these seem to be), but obviously it
         | ought to be able to track where it moved them to and ensure
         | it's not leading to fines and/or damage without recompense --
         | which it is clearly _not_ doing. Their lawyers know the city
         | isn 't following due process, which is why the city is offering
         | these payouts.
        
         | exolymph wrote:
         | Morally, yes it's theft. Legally, probably not.
        
         | petesergeant wrote:
         | > _is_ this theft? If not, why?
         | 
         | No, the asset is being moved, not retained by the mover, and
         | it's ostensibly being done for the public good (edit: see the
         | link further down the thread for why this matters). If _eminent
         | domain_ isn't theft, this definitely isn't.
         | 
         | > Does it matter if it's done by a private towing company?
         | 
         | Not if they're deputized.
        
           | quickthrower2 wrote:
           | With eminent domain can they move a house to a new location,
           | the first the owner hears of it is when they see their house
           | missing?
        
           | abeppu wrote:
           | > No, the asset is being moved, not retained by the mover
           | 
           | I don't get this argument. If I take something which doesn't
           | belong to me, say from a store, and move it two blocks away
           | and put it down, I would still be stealing right? Is the
           | perpetrator required to 'retain' something for it to be
           | theft? If I'm caught while stealing and drop the item, "I
           | just moved it without the owners consent" probably isn't
           | going to cover me.
           | 
           | > If _eminent domain_ isn't theft, this definitely isn't.
           | 
           | Clearly I'm not especially acquainted with the law, but when
           | the government exercises eminent domain doesn't it have to go
           | through some legal process? And my understanding is that
           | owners must be compensated for the property that is taken
           | under eminent domain.
        
             | cmeacham98 wrote:
             | I think a better example than eminent domain would be civil
             | asset forfeiture (at least as practiced in the US).
             | Although I guess a lot of people would say that is theft.
        
             | kareemsabri wrote:
             | IANAL and haven't read the laws of Philly but it seems
             | pretty obvious that moving your property off a public
             | street is not considered theft.
        
               | oneeyedpigeon wrote:
               | But if a private _individual_ did that, surely you would
               | consider it theft? So where 's the line, why's it OK for
               | a private company but not a private individual? If I'm
               | self employed and registered as my own company, can I do
               | it then?
        
               | kareemsabri wrote:
               | The private company versus individual has nothing to do
               | with it. The private company / individual is acting on
               | behalf of the state, and the state provides itself the
               | authority to take your property without your consent.
        
             | abeppu wrote:
             | As a followup on the "ostensibly being done for the public
             | good" part, the article describes the courtesy towing
             | practice in a way that sounds like it's sometimes for
             | private uses: "moves vehicles from legal parking spots for
             | special events, construction or emergencies". I have to
             | assume that the organizers of those special events or the
             | firms involved with that construction have paid for some
             | permit which is meant to give them exclusive use of the
             | street parking, in which case it sounds like the public
             | good is only indirectly from the revenue from those
             | permits. Apparently the ability of municipal governments to
             | exercise eminent domain solely for the purpose of
             | increasing its revenue was only established by a court case
             | in 2005. So in 2004 would you have agreed that courtesy
             | towing for a private special event or private construction
             | project was possibly theft? Or at least possibly a 5th
             | amendment violation?
             | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kelo_v._City_of_New_London
        
             | umanwizard wrote:
             | > If I take something which doesn't belong to me, say from
             | a store, and move it two blocks away and put it down, I
             | would still be stealing right?
             | 
             | No, not if you don't intend to deprive the rightful owner
             | of it (although good luck convincing anyone that you lacked
             | such intent).
             | 
             | https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/theft
             | 
             | > Theft is the taking of another person's personal property
             | with the intent of depriving that person of the use of
             | their property
        
               | abeppu wrote:
               | Thank you for highlighting the key distinction and
               | referencing a source with more information.
               | 
               | > although good luck convincing anyone that you lacked
               | such intent
               | 
               | So it sounds like in the courtesy towing context, the
               | city claims that it doesn't have any intent to deprive
               | people of the use of their property, but it's behaving in
               | a way which a reasonable person would totally anticipate
               | would lead to people being unable to use their property
               | (by dropping vehicles in locations which are never
               | communicated to the owner).
        
               | oneeyedpigeon wrote:
               | That's what I was thinking. I'm sure a good lawyer could
               | argue that, if they have a reasonable way of informing
               | the owner, but they don't do so, they are in fact
               | intending to deprive them of the vehicle.
        
               | cmeacham98 wrote:
               | Temporarily depriving somebody of their property counts,
               | these towings are clearly theft.
               | 
               | The actually interesting legal question revolves around
               | who (if anybody) is liable in this situation.
        
               | umanwizard wrote:
               | Do you have a source for that? My googling suggests the
               | opposite.
        
               | cmeacham98 wrote:
               | Sorry, I should have been more clear: it often isn't
               | "theft" (or "larceny"), legally speaking, but it usually
               | is some lesser crime under a name like "unauthorized
               | use/borrowing" or "misappropriation".
               | 
               | I'm not aware of any jurisdiction that doesn't have a law
               | that covers unauthorized use of a motor vehicle, so I can
               | practically guarantee it is illegal.
               | 
               | In Philadelphia I believe the relevant statue is https://
               | www.legis.state.pa.us/WU01/LI/LI/CT/HTM/18/00.039.02... -
               | although I'm actually unsure if towing would count as
               | "operating" here? That's a question for their lawyer.
        
               | [deleted]
        
       | umanwizard wrote:
       | I hate free street parking but this is so bizarre and unfair that
       | I actually feel sympathy for the parkers.
        
         | lostlogin wrote:
         | It is amazing how much land is taken over for the parking of
         | private vehicles.
        
           | furjrudjrufurrj wrote:
        
         | lostlogin wrote:
         | It is amazing how much public land is taken over for the
         | parking of private vehicles.
        
           | gruez wrote:
           | It's public land used for the purposes of facilitating
           | transportation using private vehicles. If you think about it
           | that way there really isn't anything different between what
           | you described and using public land to provide thoroughfares
           | for private vehicles.
        
             | umanwizard wrote:
             | > using public land to provide thoroughfares for private
             | vehicles
             | 
             | Yes, we should also largely stop doing that (or at least
             | frantically reduce how much land is dedicated to that
             | purpose).
        
       | Spooky23 wrote:
       | I feel this validates my "no Philly" policy.
       | 
       | I grew up in NYC, and have a certain immunity to deal with aloof,
       | hostile or otherwise obnoxious city officials. I've been to
       | Philly on business and pleasure a few times and... forget it,
       | it's a whole other level. One wedding, literally 30% of the guest
       | had a ticket, tow or other drama.
       | 
       | Life is too short. Philly makes Jersey look good.
        
         | ryukafalz wrote:
         | PPA is somehow simultaneously notorious for overzealously
         | ticketing and for completely ignoring cars parked in
         | crosswalks, bike lanes, sidewalks, etc. It's the most bizarrely
         | inconsistent government agency.
        
       | tzs wrote:
       | > That's the Philly euphemism for what is formally known as
       | "relocation towing" -- when the police department, Philadelphia
       | Parking Authority, or a private towing company moves vehicles
       | from legal parking spots for special events, construction or
       | emergencies.
       | 
       | > Problem is, the city doesn't have a modern, reliable way to
       | track the vehicles' new locations, leaving owners wandering the
       | streets for days or weeks, looking for their cars.
       | 
       | This would normally be the part where I (and probably half the
       | other people reading HN) would say that building a modern,
       | reliable way to track this is not hard. We'd go on to outline
       | something involving a database, probably a mobile app for the tow
       | truck drivers, and probably a web site for car owners. We'd
       | probably say this is a small project that could be done by a
       | handful of developers in a few weeks and would be fairly
       | inexpensive.
       | 
       | Others would then tell us that we are vastly underestimating the
       | difficulties of dealing with the mess that city IT tends to be,
       | and that "fairly inexpensive" would still be expensive enough
       | that there would have to be budget meetings and studies, and
       | maybe the web site would need to support multiple languages, and
       | a ton of other things we've overlooked.
       | 
       | So I'm not going to suggest that a modern, reliable way to track
       | this would be easy.
       | 
       | But why does it have to be modern? What would be wrong with an
       | old-fashioned approach?
       | 
       | Require the tow truck drivers to report the license plate numbers
       | and drop off locations and drop off date/time to the police or
       | perhaps some other government entity which can add the
       | information to a list.
       | 
       | When an owner finds their car missing and contacts the police,
       | the police can check the list and tell the owner where the car is
       | and remove it from that list, and add it to a log of past
       | courtesy tows along with a timestamp.
       | 
       | If the owner finds that their car got ticketed at the new
       | location before they could reasonably retrieve it the log of past
       | courtesy tows could be used to prove that the owner did not park
       | at the new location.
       | 
       | This requires:
       | 
       | 1. Tow truck drivers have a way to report the information. Voice
       | or text from their cell phone to a phone number maintained by the
       | police specifically for this would cover that.
       | 
       | 2. The police need to maintain a list of these reports. This can
       | be handled by having them copy the information to an index card
       | and file the card alphabetically by license number in a card
       | file.
       | 
       | 3. Car owners or police called by car owners need a way to check
       | the list. They can call the same number from #1, and the people
       | that file incoming reports can also handle checking the card
       | file.
       | 
       | 4. The police needs to maintain the log. That's another, bigger,
       | card file.
       | 
       | So basically we need a phone line, someone who will answer that
       | phone, a file clerk with enough time to handle these, enough card
       | files to hold the recent records, probably a shelf or two in an
       | office to hold those card files, and a bigger card storage system
       | for the historical log.
        
       | petesergeant wrote:
       | In related "money changes police tactics" news:
       | 
       | https://www.washingtonpost.com/investigations/interactive/20...
        
         | metadat wrote:
         | Truly disgusting. Submitted:
         | https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32872437
        
       | quickthrower2 wrote:
       | So it sounds like car towing is outsourced to some kind of bounty
       | hunting operation of private companies and no one know their arse
       | from their elbow about where cars are moved. Pretty stupid. It
       | would be easy to fix even with pen, paper and phones. But there
       | should be a signed paper trail about the move.
       | 
       | And dropping the cars off in illegal spots, well the fine should
       | go to the "driver" not the car.
       | 
       | I guess they are too lazy to change this or it is profiting
       | someone personally?
        
         | bdhess wrote:
         | If they got "courtesy towed" they were already parked
         | illegally. (Used to live in Philly, it happened to me once.)
        
           | MerelyMortal wrote:
           | I'm inclined to believe the article which lists other
           | criteria that are out of the control of the driver for
           | reasons of a courtesy tow.
        
       | joebob42 wrote:
       | It's weirdly both such a big number and such a small number.
       | 
       | 15k is a ton for many people and probably well more than the
       | inconvenience this one guy suffered.
       | 
       | But it's insubstantial compared to the cost of this case turning
       | into a class action and getting the city to actually have to
       | change something, and it sounds like it's insubstantial compared
       | to the total harm of this program. Especially cases like the
       | woman who was nearly arrested.
        
         | abraae wrote:
         | Sounds like it was too small at the end of the day. 2 people
         | accepted and 2 others are proceeding with class action suit.
         | They failed in their goal of snuffing out the class action
         | suit. Maybe $30k would have been enough. Though that might have
         | attracted new litigants.
         | 
         | Clearly a lose lose for Philly, which is not surprising with
         | such a shit show of a policy.
        
           | quickthrower2 wrote:
           | The problem with doing this to random cars is some of the
           | people will be rich enough to say no!
        
       ___________________________________________________________________
       (page generated 2022-09-16 23:01 UTC)