Quantcast

Thanks, Duluth.

violation

You may not attempt to sell a car while the car is parked on a street. You may, however, attempt to sell a car when driving the car. Good to know!

Speaking of which: 1986 Mercedes 300E – $3500

image

21 Comments

Paul Lundgren

about 2 years ago

We need to get that thing off the streets right away. Think of the children! You got off lightly.

If it had a cassette player, I'd buy it. Maybe I will anyway.

vicarious

about 2 years ago

Dude, it has the factory original cassette deck.

Paul Lundgren

about 2 years ago

Then I guess my next step will be deciding what tape to pull out for my test drive. I'm thinking maybe the Allman Brothers.

I thought those buttons looked like they control a tape player, but it still doesn't look like a tape player.

TimK

about 2 years ago

I got a ticket for the same "offense" a few years back just before Xmas and posted about it here on PDD. The comments were about evenly split between me being a victim of absurdly enforced blue laws and deserving the death penalty.  Later that day, our former, beloved Chief of Police  (Commissioner Gordon, for you Batman fans) called me and asked that I send the ticket directory to him and that he would expunge it. He said that law enforcement shouldn't be about squeezing every nickel it could out of our citizens.

vicarious

about 2 years ago

It also has the original first aid kit in the rear window storage bin.

vicarious

about 2 years ago

The mayor lives down the block. I may go tape the ticket to her front door.

vicarious

about 2 years ago

I would like to point out that "Failure to set parking brake" is in the same city ordinance. 

Are you guilty?

Paul Lundgren

about 2 years ago



I opted instead for more 1986-appropriate music.

Bob L

about 2 years ago

My wife got a ticket for parking "over the line" in the parking ramp next to Fond-du-Luth Casino! I also revoked her driving rights for one month. Thanks to the Duluth Police Department for keeping an eye out for our safety!

Karasu

about 2 years ago

'Bout damn time they started enforcing this one. ^^^

heysme

about 2 years ago

This would make sense for the car owner who leaves the "for sale" vehicle on street and without moving it until sold. The ordinance for not moving a car in 24 hours would cover that offense. I would hope the new mayor and police chief adhere to Gordon's thought of not "squeezing every nickel it could out of our citizens."

leikanger

about 2 years ago

Try taking the ticket to the City Attorney's Office and see if they will dismiss it.  33-90 is clearly unconstitutional having been enacted before the U.S Supreme Court determined that commercial speech is protected by the First Amendment.  33-92 silly, but not unconstitutional.  Good luck.

leikanger

about 2 years ago

Here is a link to the city's Parking Ticket Appeal site.

Note appeal has to be made within 10 days of ticket, so you are probably getting pretty close. In dispute section indicate the ordinance is unconstitutional and a violation of your first amendment rights. Again, good luck.

vicarious

about 2 years ago

I am disputing the citation, citing Pagan v. Fruchey:

The 6th Circuit Court of Appeals en banc determined that a city may not prohibit people from posting “For Sale” signs on parked cars. Pagan v. Fruchey, 492 F.3d 766 (6th Cir. 2007). The village of Glendale, Ohio threatened Christopher Pagan with a citation when he put a small “For Sale” sign in the window of his 1970 Mercury Cougar parked in front of his home on a public road. To avoid the citation, Pagan was forced to remove his “For Sale” sign that violated Glendale’s ordinance forbidding any person from displaying a parked car for sale on any public or private road in the village. That same ordinance outlawed parking for the purpose of “any advertising.” Pagan sued the village claiming that the ordinance and its enforcement violated his constitutional rights. A district court found for the village and upheld the ordinance as constitutional on summary judgment. A panel of the 6th Circuit agreed and determined that the ordinance was a valid restriction to further Glendale’s substantial interest in traffic safety and aesthetics. These decisions gave great deference to Matt Fruchey, the Glendale’s Chief of Police, who stated the village’s interests in an affidavit. On appeal, the 6th Circuit en banc found this deference to be misplaced. At the outset, the en banc court determined that Pagan could properly challenge the ordinance as an impermissible restriction on his First Amendment rights. The court was not persuaded by the village’s argument that the ordinance was immune from a First Amendment challenge because it restricted activity and not speech. The careful wording of the law that prohibited “parking” could not conceal that, as enforced, the law prohibited commercial speech. Commercial speech that is true and not misleading may not be restricted unless the government proves a substantial interest that is materially advanced with a narrowly drawn regulation. In this case, there was no contest to the village’s claimed substantial interest in road safety and aesthetics. However, the en banc court refused to take the police chief’s word for any correlation between those interests and the ordinance banning “For Sale” signs. The court required some evidence that the ordinance furthered safety beyond the chief’s conclusory statement. The court required some evidence to support the village’s argument for aesthetics beyond its bald assertion that the ordinance reflected such considerations. The 6th Circuit en banc refused to liken “For Sale” signs in parked cars to billboards, refused to uphold the ordinance on principles of “obviousness” or “common sense,” refused to restrict commercial speech without evidentiary justification, and refused to give the village leeway because of the special nature of aesthetic concerns. The en banc court agreed with the lone dissenter from the panel decision in holding that Pagan had no burden to show the ineffectiveness of Glendale’s ordinance. Rather, the village had the burden to prove that restriction of “For Sale” signs directly advanced its legitimate interests. The village failed to do so, and its ordinance failed to pass constitutional muster.

leikanger

about 2 years ago

And of course it is important the U.S. Supreme Court denied the city's petition for certiorari. 128 S.Ct. 711 (2007).

Paul Lundgren

about 2 years ago

I noticed this little number was read at the March 13 Duluth City Council meeting.

File #: 17-009-O 
Type: Ordinance 
Status: Second Reading 
File created: 2/28/2017 
In control: Public Safety 
On agenda: 3/13/2017 

Title: An ordinance repealing Section 90, Chapter 33, of the Duluth City Code, 1959 as amended relating to advertising vehicles for sale.

City Proposal: The city of Duluth does ordain:

Section 1.  That Section 90 of Chapter 33 of the Duluth City Code, 1959, as amended, relating to advertising vehicle for sale on a public street is hereby repealed in its entirety. 

Section 2:   That this ordinance shall take effect and be in force 30 days from and after its passage and publication.

Statement of Purpose:  This ordinance repeals Section 90 of Chapter 33. The section reads as follows: “Sec. 33 90. Parking vehicles on street for sale prohibited. No person shall place any vehicle on a highway to display the same for sale or exchange. A vehicle shall be deemed to be displayed in violation of this Section when found standing upon a street and bearing indications that it is for sale or exchange.  (Ord. No. 6838, 6 12 1950, ' 67.)” 

Developments in First Amendment jurisprudence make the continuing validity of the section doubtful.

vicarious

about 2 years ago

I take full credit for this.

vicarious

about 2 years ago

Apparently, I never updated this post. When I disputed the citation, I promptly received a reply from the city attorney informing me that the ticket was being waived "as a courtesy" while the statute was reviewed.

Paul Lundgren

about 2 years ago



Dedication: To Vicarious, American hero.

Leave a Comment

Only registered members can post a comment , Login / Register Here

Read previous post:
PDD Quiz: Bakeries of Duluth

Duluth likes its baked goods, as evidenced by the many bakeries dotting the local landscape. How much do you know...

Close