<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments for DPT Blog</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.dptblog.com/comments/feed" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.dptblog.com</link>
	<description>Tips and tricks to avoid parking tickets in San Francisco</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Fri, 10 Oct 2008 01:16:46 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.4</generator>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
		<item>
		<title>Comment on Parking Citation Fees by patrick</title>
		<link>http://www.dptblog.com/parking-citation-fees/comment-page-1#comment-815</link>
		<dc:creator>patrick</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 10 Oct 2008 01:16:46 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.dptblog.com/parking-citation-fees/#comment-815</guid>
		<description>Has anyone ever successfully contested violation tc58A for not curbing wheels on hill over 3% grade?  I parked on a very slight hill -- it might not even be a 3% grade - so the need to curb wheels was not apparent.  There were no signs requiring it.  Has anyone ever won, either on the basis that the ordinance is unconstitional for lack of notice or on any other basis?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Has anyone ever successfully contested violation tc58A for not curbing wheels on hill over 3% grade?  I parked on a very slight hill &#8212; it might not even be a 3% grade &#8211; so the need to curb wheels was not apparent.  There were no signs requiring it.  Has anyone ever won, either on the basis that the ordinance is unconstitional for lack of notice or on any other basis?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on DPT Parking Tickets by Eric</title>
		<link>http://www.dptblog.com/dpt-parking-tickets-2.php/comment-page-1#comment-814</link>
		<dc:creator>Eric</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 30 Sep 2008 20:17:47 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.dptblog.com/dpt-parking-tickets-2.php#comment-814</guid>
		<description>DPT is a scam. Since it is almost impossible to beat a ticket no matter what the reason is. I am a limo driver and I get unfairly hassled all the time. I guess I could waste a day and get a hearing but from what I hear they almost NEVER dismiss the ticket. Have resorted to have complaint forms in my car and when they start hassling me I pull one out and start writing, just like they do to you. It&#039;s worked a couple of times and they&#039;ve driven away. Any know why they selectively enforce against limousine (sedan etc)?

And yes I hope they all get shot!</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>DPT is a scam. Since it is almost impossible to beat a ticket no matter what the reason is. I am a limo driver and I get unfairly hassled all the time. I guess I could waste a day and get a hearing but from what I hear they almost NEVER dismiss the ticket. Have resorted to have complaint forms in my car and when they start hassling me I pull one out and start writing, just like they do to you. It&#8217;s worked a couple of times and they&#8217;ve driven away. Any know why they selectively enforce against limousine (sedan etc)?</p>
<p>And yes I hope they all get shot!</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on Parking Citation Fees by Eric</title>
		<link>http://www.dptblog.com/parking-citation-fees/comment-page-1#comment-813</link>
		<dc:creator>Eric</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 30 Sep 2008 20:09:15 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.dptblog.com/parking-citation-fees/#comment-813</guid>
		<description>I am an owner of a small limousine service in SF. I have been in business almost 20 yrs. I&#039;m writing to see if anyone knows about the on going enforcement policy against limos from SFDPT. It seems that they selectively enforce against limo drivers in downtown. I just got an $85 ticket for pulling into a white zone. They will go by other violators to write a limo driver a ticket. If anyone can help shed some light on this problem I would really appreciate it. In the mean time I&#039;m filing a complaint with SFDPT and writing a letter to Bond Yee the head of SFDPT.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I am an owner of a small limousine service in SF. I have been in business almost 20 yrs. I&#8217;m writing to see if anyone knows about the on going enforcement policy against limos from SFDPT. It seems that they selectively enforce against limo drivers in downtown. I just got an $85 ticket for pulling into a white zone. They will go by other violators to write a limo driver a ticket. If anyone can help shed some light on this problem I would really appreciate it. In the mean time I&#8217;m filing a complaint with SFDPT and writing a letter to Bond Yee the head of SFDPT.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on DPT Parking Tickets by Jacqued</title>
		<link>http://www.dptblog.com/dpt-parking-tickets-2.php/comment-page-1#comment-704</link>
		<dc:creator>Jacqued</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 28 May 2008 06:11:26 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.dptblog.com/dpt-parking-tickets-2.php#comment-704</guid>
		<description>I really HATE the dpt... really a whole lot.. I don&#039;t understand who would want to be a dpt officer... you really suck at life so much that you can&#039;t even get a job at McDonalds??? dag.... you suck!  and then they charge you so much money, they wonder why the country is in a recession! hhhhmmmm.... 100 dollars for parking in my own driveway... hhhmmmmm that&#039;s a mystery!!!  I really hope that anyone who works fo the dpt is miserable every day of their working lives... and I really hope that their little union sucks ass... I&#039;m not going to be nice to them!  I got like 5 tickets for expired tabs because some retard sent it to the wrong address, then I got a boot... so I have valid reason to HATE the DPT and all that work for it.... you suck.. you really do</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I really HATE the dpt&#8230; really a whole lot.. I don&#8217;t understand who would want to be a dpt officer&#8230; you really suck at life so much that you can&#8217;t even get a job at McDonalds??? dag&#8230;. you suck!  and then they charge you so much money, they wonder why the country is in a recession! hhhhmmmm&#8230;. 100 dollars for parking in my own driveway&#8230; hhhmmmmm that&#8217;s a mystery!!!  I really hope that anyone who works fo the dpt is miserable every day of their working lives&#8230; and I really hope that their little union sucks ass&#8230; I&#8217;m not going to be nice to them!  I got like 5 tickets for expired tabs because some retard sent it to the wrong address, then I got a boot&#8230; so I have valid reason to HATE the DPT and all that work for it&#8230;. you suck.. you really do</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on Parking Citation Fees by Shelly Foster</title>
		<link>http://www.dptblog.com/parking-citation-fees/comment-page-1#comment-534</link>
		<dc:creator>Shelly Foster</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 31 Jan 2008 05:31:24 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.dptblog.com/parking-citation-fees/#comment-534</guid>
		<description>I want to know what TC38D green zone violation is.
I got a ticket and I have a temporary parking pass that was displayed. There is no paint on the curb and no other signs indicating some other restriction other than the 2 hour limit.

I will need to contest this ticket.

thanks for reading</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I want to know what TC38D green zone violation is.<br />
I got a ticket and I have a temporary parking pass that was displayed. There is no paint on the curb and no other signs indicating some other restriction other than the 2 hour limit.</p>
<p>I will need to contest this ticket.</p>
<p>thanks for reading</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on Is there a way to make your car less noticeable to the parking DPT ticketers in San franicisco? by REDD</title>
		<link>http://www.dptblog.com/is-there-a-way-to-make-your-car-less-noticeable-to-the-parking-dpt-ticketers-in-san-franicisco.php/comment-page-1#comment-708</link>
		<dc:creator>REDD</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 29 Jan 2008 18:00:59 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.dptblog.com/is-there-a-way-to-make-your-car-less-noticeable-to-the-parking-dpt-ticketers-in-san-franicisco.php#comment-708</guid>
		<description>The hand held computer we use keeps track of each violation, the time of the violation and the information regarding the Vehicle.  On the hand held is a space where you enter the Violation, name and number of the street, time you began and the time you ended.  If its a 1hr parking only then the hand held will set a timer and any Vehicle in Violation will show up and the PCO will then issue an over time Citation.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>The hand held computer we use keeps track of each violation, the time of the violation and the information regarding the Vehicle.  On the hand held is a space where you enter the Violation, name and number of the street, time you began and the time you ended.  If its a 1hr parking only then the hand held will set a timer and any Vehicle in Violation will show up and the PCO will then issue an over time Citation.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on Parking Citation Fees by SF_parker</title>
		<link>http://www.dptblog.com/parking-citation-fees/comment-page-1#comment-325</link>
		<dc:creator>SF_parker</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 06 Dec 2007 22:28:30 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.dptblog.com/parking-citation-fees/#comment-325</guid>
		<description>Where can I get an SF Resedential Parking permit?  (Citation is for TC315A.)</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Where can I get an SF Resedential Parking permit?  (Citation is for TC315A.)</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on Parking Citation Fees by Thomas McIntyre</title>
		<link>http://www.dptblog.com/parking-citation-fees/comment-page-1#comment-16</link>
		<dc:creator>Thomas McIntyre</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 10 May 2007 19:20:56 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.dptblog.com/parking-citation-fees/#comment-16</guid>
		<description>In 1986, in response to complaints of residents of the Sunset (near 19th Ave) and the Richmond (Fulton St) the Supervisors passed this law:

SEC. 710. FINDINGS.

The Board of Supervisors of the City and County of San Francisco hereby finds and declares that: (a) there is a critical shortage of on-street parking places in the residential areas of the City and County; (b) the critical shortage is exacerbated by the fact that many single-family residences and apartment buildings have either no garages or have fewer garages than dwelling units; (c) that many residents of the City and County already find they must park many blocks from their residence; (d) that the critical parking shortage is further exacerbated by the practice of people parking vehicles on the street in residential areas for days at a time for the sole purpose of displaying same for private sale; (e) that because of the critical need for parking in the residential neighborhoods, the City must now regulate the use of residential area on-street parking spaces for purposes of selling vehicles; (f) to promote the safety and welfare of the residents of the City and County of San Francisco and to assure an equitable method of regulation, it is necessary to regulate the display of vehicles for the purpose of sale in on-street parking spaces.

(Added by Ord. 10-86, App. 1/17/86)

SEC. 710.1. DEFINITIONS.

(a) &quot;City&quot; shall mean the City and County of San Francisco.

(b) &quot;Display for sale&quot; shall mean to place a vehicle upon the public streets for the purpose of offering the vehicle for sale or for soliciting offers to purchase the vehicle.

(c) &quot;Owner&quot; shall mean any person, firm, partnership, corporation, or association whose name appears on the registration document as the registered owner for the automobile on file with the State Department of Motor Vehicles.

(d) &quot;Park&quot; or &quot;parking&quot; shall mean the standing of a vehicle, whether occupied or not, otherwise than temporarily for the purpose of and while actually engaged in loading or unloading merchandise or passengers.

(e) &quot;Police Department&quot; shall mean the Chief of Police or the designee thereof.

(f) &quot;Residence of Owner&quot; shall mean the residence of the registered owner of the vehicle as shown on the vehicle registration papers issued by the Department of Motor Vehicles or on file with Department of Motor Vehicles.

(g) &quot;Vehicle&quot; shall mean any device by which any person or property may be propelled, moved, or drawn upon a street or highway excepting a device moved by human power or used exclusively upon stationary rails or tracks or any object placed thereon.

(Added by Ord. 10-86, App. 1/17/86)

SEC. 710.2. ON STREET SALES PROHIBITED; EXCEPTION; REMOVAL OF VEHICLES AUTHORIZED.

It shall be unlawful for any person to park a vehicle on an on-street parking place for the purpose of displaying same for sale unless the vehicle is parked within 600 feet of the residence of the registered owner of the vehicle. Pursuant to Section 22651.9 of the California Vehicle Code, any vehicle parked on any street or highway within the City and County of San Francisco in violation of this Section may be removed and impounded in accordance with Article 9 of the San Francisco Traffic Code, provided that (a) such vehicle has been issued a notice of parking violation for violation of this Section within the past 30 days, (b) such previous notice of parking violation was accompanied by a warning that an additional violation may result in the removal and impoundment of the vehicle, (c) a subsequent notice of parking violation was issued at least 24 hours prior to the removal of the vehicle, and (d) any other conditions to the removal of the vehicle set forth in Section 22651.9 of the California Vehicle Code have been satisfied.

So, &quot; because of the critical need for parking in the residential neighborhoods, the City must now regulate the use of residential area on-street parking spaces for purposes of selling vehicles;&quot;

Therefore; using residential streets as used car lots was banned.
The wording is clear, and requires clear intent for violation - i.e. -

&quot;(b) &quot;Display for sale&quot; shall mean to place a vehicle upon the public streets  FOR THE PURPOSE of offering the vehicle for sale or for soliciting offers to purchase the vehicle.&quot;

It is easy to spot vehicles &quot;placed on the street FOR THE PURPOSE of offering the vehicle for sale&quot; as they are usually parked on State highways (19th Ave) where SF PC codes do not apply (Assemblyman Yee&#039;s new law will address this,) and have very large, bright &quot;neon&quot; colored for sale signs. Often a few of these cars are parked near each other, and have the same (cell)phone number because they are being sold by informal used car dealers who sell these on commission.

Dr. Yee states &quot;This law will not affect a resident who just has a for-sale sign in their car and is shopping,&quot; and Sec 710.1 is clearly not intended to target such situations. However, this clear intent got lost on the way to the PC Officers as their tickets and fine schedules define 710 as, simply &quot;For Sale Sign.&quot; This is NOT the law, the law prohibits parking &quot;FOR THE PURPOSE&quot; of selling the car, not parking to shop, etc. with a for sale sign in the window.

I have a recurring medical appointment Tuesday mornings. My car is in the shop and I have been driving my wife&#039;s old car which is for sale. I got two tickets on successive Tuesday mornings while parked at a meter in front of Walgreens! Plainly, my purpose in parking the car for 50 minutes was to go to my appointment. I think the DPT should review how the violation of 710 is described, and change that description to reflect the intent of the law!
Thanks</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>In 1986, in response to complaints of residents of the Sunset (near 19th Ave) and the Richmond (Fulton St) the Supervisors passed this law:</p>
<p>SEC. 710. FINDINGS.</p>
<p>The Board of Supervisors of the City and County of San Francisco hereby finds and declares that: (a) there is a critical shortage of on-street parking places in the residential areas of the City and County; (b) the critical shortage is exacerbated by the fact that many single-family residences and apartment buildings have either no garages or have fewer garages than dwelling units; (c) that many residents of the City and County already find they must park many blocks from their residence; (d) that the critical parking shortage is further exacerbated by the practice of people parking vehicles on the street in residential areas for days at a time for the sole purpose of displaying same for private sale; (e) that because of the critical need for parking in the residential neighborhoods, the City must now regulate the use of residential area on-street parking spaces for purposes of selling vehicles; (f) to promote the safety and welfare of the residents of the City and County of San Francisco and to assure an equitable method of regulation, it is necessary to regulate the display of vehicles for the purpose of sale in on-street parking spaces.</p>
<p>(Added by Ord. 10-86, App. 1/17/86)</p>
<p>SEC. 710.1. DEFINITIONS.</p>
<p>(a) &#8220;City&#8221; shall mean the City and County of San Francisco.</p>
<p>(b) &#8220;Display for sale&#8221; shall mean to place a vehicle upon the public streets for the purpose of offering the vehicle for sale or for soliciting offers to purchase the vehicle.</p>
<p>(c) &#8220;Owner&#8221; shall mean any person, firm, partnership, corporation, or association whose name appears on the registration document as the registered owner for the automobile on file with the State Department of Motor Vehicles.</p>
<p>(d) &#8220;Park&#8221; or &#8220;parking&#8221; shall mean the standing of a vehicle, whether occupied or not, otherwise than temporarily for the purpose of and while actually engaged in loading or unloading merchandise or passengers.</p>
<p>(e) &#8220;Police Department&#8221; shall mean the Chief of Police or the designee thereof.</p>
<p>(f) &#8220;Residence of Owner&#8221; shall mean the residence of the registered owner of the vehicle as shown on the vehicle registration papers issued by the Department of Motor Vehicles or on file with Department of Motor Vehicles.</p>
<p>(g) &#8220;Vehicle&#8221; shall mean any device by which any person or property may be propelled, moved, or drawn upon a street or highway excepting a device moved by human power or used exclusively upon stationary rails or tracks or any object placed thereon.</p>
<p>(Added by Ord. 10-86, App. 1/17/86)</p>
<p>SEC. 710.2. ON STREET SALES PROHIBITED; EXCEPTION; REMOVAL OF VEHICLES AUTHORIZED.</p>
<p>It shall be unlawful for any person to park a vehicle on an on-street parking place for the purpose of displaying same for sale unless the vehicle is parked within 600 feet of the residence of the registered owner of the vehicle. Pursuant to Section 22651.9 of the California Vehicle Code, any vehicle parked on any street or highway within the City and County of San Francisco in violation of this Section may be removed and impounded in accordance with Article 9 of the San Francisco Traffic Code, provided that (a) such vehicle has been issued a notice of parking violation for violation of this Section within the past 30 days, (b) such previous notice of parking violation was accompanied by a warning that an additional violation may result in the removal and impoundment of the vehicle, (c) a subsequent notice of parking violation was issued at least 24 hours prior to the removal of the vehicle, and (d) any other conditions to the removal of the vehicle set forth in Section 22651.9 of the California Vehicle Code have been satisfied.</p>
<p>So, &#8221; because of the critical need for parking in the residential neighborhoods, the City must now regulate the use of residential area on-street parking spaces for purposes of selling vehicles;&#8221;</p>
<p>Therefore; using residential streets as used car lots was banned.<br />
The wording is clear, and requires clear intent for violation &#8211; i.e. -</p>
<p>&#8220;(b) &#8220;Display for sale&#8221; shall mean to place a vehicle upon the public streets  FOR THE PURPOSE of offering the vehicle for sale or for soliciting offers to purchase the vehicle.&#8221;</p>
<p>It is easy to spot vehicles &#8220;placed on the street FOR THE PURPOSE of offering the vehicle for sale&#8221; as they are usually parked on State highways (19th Ave) where SF PC codes do not apply (Assemblyman Yee&#8217;s new law will address this,) and have very large, bright &#8220;neon&#8221; colored for sale signs. Often a few of these cars are parked near each other, and have the same (cell)phone number because they are being sold by informal used car dealers who sell these on commission.</p>
<p>Dr. Yee states &#8220;This law will not affect a resident who just has a for-sale sign in their car and is shopping,&#8221; and Sec 710.1 is clearly not intended to target such situations. However, this clear intent got lost on the way to the PC Officers as their tickets and fine schedules define 710 as, simply &#8220;For Sale Sign.&#8221; This is NOT the law, the law prohibits parking &#8220;FOR THE PURPOSE&#8221; of selling the car, not parking to shop, etc. with a for sale sign in the window.</p>
<p>I have a recurring medical appointment Tuesday mornings. My car is in the shop and I have been driving my wife&#8217;s old car which is for sale. I got two tickets on successive Tuesday mornings while parked at a meter in front of Walgreens! Plainly, my purpose in parking the car for 50 minutes was to go to my appointment. I think the DPT should review how the violation of 710 is described, and change that description to reflect the intent of the law!<br />
Thanks</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on For two-hour parking spots, the SF DPT parking officers mark your car with chalk to determine if u overstayed? by Michael R</title>
		<link>http://www.dptblog.com/for-two-hour-parking-spots-the-sf-dpt-parking-officers-mark-your-car-with-chalk-to-determine-if-u-overstayed.php/comment-page-1#comment-758</link>
		<dc:creator>Michael R</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 04 Aug 2006 23:43:26 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.dptblog.com/for-two-hour-parking-spots-the-sf-dpt-parking-officers-mark-your-car-with-chalk-to-determine-if-u-overstayed.php#comment-758</guid>
		<description>I used to do this all the time when in school.  Just wipe of the chalk and you are good.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I used to do this all the time when in school.  Just wipe of the chalk and you are good.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on For two-hour parking spots, the SF DPT parking officers mark your car with chalk to determine if u overstayed? by Sexy house music</title>
		<link>http://www.dptblog.com/for-two-hour-parking-spots-the-sf-dpt-parking-officers-mark-your-car-with-chalk-to-determine-if-u-overstayed.php/comment-page-1#comment-757</link>
		<dc:creator>Sexy house music</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 04 Aug 2006 21:03:36 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.dptblog.com/for-two-hour-parking-spots-the-sf-dpt-parking-officers-mark-your-car-with-chalk-to-determine-if-u-overstayed.php#comment-757</guid>
		<description>you can move your car like the others said. but the first poster is right. the&#039;ll do other things then mark your car with chalk</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>you can move your car like the others said. but the first poster is right. the&#8217;ll do other things then mark your car with chalk</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
