Update
Only logged in members can reply and interact with the post.
Join SimilarWorlds for FREE »

Somewhere in the U.S. There's a State Supreme Court That Let Stand a $165,000 Fine to a Homeowner Whose Family Parked Their Cars in Her Own Driveway.


That's right. After all, where else would crazy cr@p like that happen? 🤭

The owner of the house and her family have four cars, so they spill slightly onto the lawn when parked—which is where the town takes issue.

The State Supreme Court declined to review the case of Sandy Martinez, a single mother who has spent several years fighting fines that have now ballooned to $165,000 and counting. Over $100,000 of those fines relate directly to Ms. Martinez parking her cars on her driveway and slightly onto her grass. Her home isn't home to her alone; her son, daughter, and sister all live with her. All four of them have full-time jobs, and each of them has their own car. The house itself is on a corner lot, so street parking isn't available. As such, they line their cars up across the four-car driveway.

https://www.roadandtrack.com/news/a69869237/supreme-court-165000-dollar-fine-driveway-parking-florida/
Top | New | Old
DeWayfarer · 61-69, M
Not about how many cars are parked on the property, in any way. The objection is about everyone living in the same house.

The city just can't make such a law, so they approach it under what they think they can control.

BTW this is actually a HUD position. They have controls over how many people can live in any dwelling. And if it's not approved, you won't get any funding.
DeWayfarer · 61-69, M
@beckyromero haaaa so funny. 😆

You use a decision from 1974 to justify anything concerning capitalism in conservative Florida in 2025!

This is about religion being pushed in project 2025 and this SCOTUS supports said values!

BTW there was a third disscent in that...

Justice William O. Douglas – Dissenting Opinion in Village of Belle Terre v. Boraas

Justice William O. Douglas delivered a dissenting opinion in the case, highlighting several points of concern regarding the zoning ordinance:

Infringement on Individual Liberties:

Douglas argued that the ordinance imposed undue restrictions on personal freedoms. He believed that the state should not have the authority to dictate how individuals arrange their living situations, which he viewed as a fundamental aspect of personal liberty.

Exclusionary Practices:
He criticized the ordinance for its exclusionary nature, suggesting it aimed to preserve a specific community character at the expense of inclusivity. Douglas contended that such regulations could lead to the marginalization of certain groups, particularly those who might not fit the traditional concept of a "family," such as students or single individuals sharing housing.

Social and Economic Implications:
Douglas emphasized the negative social and economic consequences of such zoning laws, arguing that they contributed to housing shortages and made it more difficult for individuals, particularly young people, to find affordable living arrangements. He saw the ordinance as a barrier to creating vibrant and diverse communities.

Douglas's dissent reflected his commitment to protecting civil liberties and promoting inclusivity, and he often championed the rights of individuals in the context of government regulations.
DeWayfarer · 61-69, M
@beckyromero Now why the case was up held. NOTICE the political parties involved specifically...

Political Makeup of the Supreme Court in 1974
Majority Justices (6 in Favor)

Warren E. Burger (Chief Justice) – Conservative
William H. Rehnquist – Conservative
Harry Blackmun – Moderate
Lewis F. Powell Jr. – Moderate to conservative
Byron R. White – Moderate
Potter Stewart – Moderate

Dissenting Justices (3 Against)

Thurgood Marshall – Liberal
William O. Douglas – Liberal
William J. Brennan Jr. – Liberal

Clarification on Abstentions

There were no abstentions in this case; all justices participated in the vote.
Summary of Decisions

Votes in Favor of the Ordinance: 6
Votes Against the Ordinance (Dissent): 3
beckyromero · 36-40, F
@DeWayfarer
You use a decision from 1974 to justify anything concerning capitalism in conservative Florida in 2025!

Not in any way "justifying" the decision.

I agree with Marshall's dissent, hence why I chose that passage to highlight.
Strictmichael75 · 61-69, M
A lot of crazy people there

 
Post Comment