As one who is a non-student who lives in the area I have no sympathy for all the complaining. I am very sick of my street being a parking lot. I for one didn't want the restrictions for the evening and night, but from 7am-6pm, but many other residence have problems at night.

These are just a few things I've seen over the years. Students (who else parks grabs a back pack and walks toward campus) have parked in front of my DRIVEWAY - I have them towed. I've had them park in front of the fire hydrant, on the curved corner of the intersection, and (my fav) squeezing their jacked up SUV/truck in a space only big enough for a Mini between my driveway and the people next door. They go WAY over the 25MPH speed limit, they pass slower drivers and they throw trash out the window onto my lawn. considering there is a school zone and a park in the area I don't think the city has done enough to keep people and kids in the area safe.

My family has live in this area for over 70 years and it is the increase of students that have changed the area. I have NO sympathy! When I went to school I bought a parking permit and went early to hunt for a spot. I respected the people who lived near the school and stayed out of their neighborhoods.

You would think that out of all the students in the world that those going to "the Lord's University" would be more respectful, but they are not. They are as selfish as any other. Yes I know he's from UVU, but he's in the minority in the area.

The Keeper wrote:


"Assembly" is not the issue here. You had your "assembly", but you chose a highly regulated means, volunteered into by you, to travel to that "assembly."

I would wager that you walked into that courtroom with evidence of consent to be regulated, commonly referred to as a driver license, in your back pocket, said "uh, constitution!", yet still don't have a clue about the duties, contractual and quasi-contractual obligations associated with voluntarily requesting government privileges and benefits.

Ahh, Keeper. I expected better of you. Here's a thought from Federalist 23: Alexander Hamilton pointed to "axioms as simple as they are universal; the means ought to be proportioned
to the end; the persons from whose agency the attainment of any end is expected, ought to possess the means by which it is to be attained."

This principle "carries its own evidence along with it... and cannot be made plainer," Hamilton wrote.

Without the means to exercise them, rights don't exist. The question at issue here is whether driving a car and parking on a public street is a means proportional to the end of assembling and associating. A newspaper has a right to publish, but cities may not prohibit the installation of news racks for distribution, precisely because the means to distribute is inherent in the right of free press.

GrackMarginal wrote:
The Keeper wrote:


"Assembly" is not the issue here. You had your "assembly", but you chose a highly regulated means, volunteered into by you, to travel to that "assembly."

I would wager that you walked into that courtroom with evidence of consent to be regulated, commonly referred to as a driver license, in your back pocket, said "uh, constitution!", yet still don't have a clue about the duties, contractual and quasi-contractual obligations associated with voluntarily requesting government privileges and benefits.

Ahh, Keeper. I expected better of you. Here's a thought from Federalist 23: Alexander Hamilton pointed to "axioms as simple as they are universal; the means ought to be proportioned
to the end; the persons from whose agency the attainment of any end is expected, ought to possess the means by which it is to be attained."

This principle "carries its own evidence along with it... and cannot be made plainer," Hamilton wrote.

Without the means to exercise them, rights don't exist. The question at issue here is whether driving a car and parking on a public street is a means proportional to the end of assembling and associating. A newspaper has a right to publish, but cities may not prohibit the installation of news racks for distribution, precisely because the means to distribute is inherent in the right of free press.

Unfortunatly, Mr. Hamilton wasn't around when Franklin "Deficit" Roosevelt declared the United States technical bankrupt and hypothecated all of the real property, goods, and services to the privately owned Federal Reserve banking cartel.

Daijobu wrote:
As one who is a non-student who lives in the area I have no sympathy for all the complaining. I am very sick of my street being a parking lot. I for one didn't want the restrictions for the evening and night, but from 7am-6pm, but many other residence have problems at night.

These are just a few things I've seen over the years. Students (who else parks grabs a back pack and walks toward campus) have parked in front of my DRIVEWAY - I have them towed. I've had them park in front of the fire hydrant, on the curved corner of the intersection, and (my fav) squeezing their jacked up SUV/truck in a space only big enough for a Mini between my driveway and the people next door. They go WAY over the 25MPH speed limit, they pass slower drivers and they throw trash out the window onto my lawn. considering there is a school zone and a park in the area I don't think the city has done enough to keep people and kids in the area safe.

My family has live in this area for over 70 years and it is the increase of students that have changed the area. I have NO sympathy! When I went to school I bought a parking permit and went early to hunt for a spot. I respected the people who lived near the school and stayed out of their neighborhoods.

You would think that out of all the students in the world that those going to "the Lord's University" would be more respectful, but they are not. They are as selfish as any other. Yes I know he's from UVU, but he's in the minority in the area.

I still believe that BYU should require all of the OUT OF STATE students to leave their cars home..We have buses for them to use.

The Keeper wrote:
GrackMarginal wrote:
The Keeper wrote:


"Assembly" is not the issue here. You had your "assembly", but you chose a highly regulated means, volunteered into by you, to travel to that "assembly."

I would wager that you walked into that courtroom with evidence of consent to be regulated, commonly referred to as a driver license, in your back pocket, said "uh, constitution!", yet still don't have a clue about the duties, contractual and quasi-contractual obligations associated with voluntarily requesting government privileges and benefits.

Ahh, Keeper. I expected better of you. Here's a thought from Federalist 23: Alexander Hamilton pointed to "axioms as simple as they are universal; the means ought to be proportioned
to the end; the persons from whose agency the attainment of any end is expected, ought to possess the means by which it is to be attained."

This principle "carries its own evidence along with it... and cannot be made plainer," Hamilton wrote.

Without the means to exercise them, rights don't exist. The question at issue here is whether driving a car and parking on a public street is a means proportional to the end of assembling and associating. A newspaper has a right to publish, but cities may not prohibit the installation of news racks for distribution, precisely because the means to distribute is inherent in the right of free press.

Unfortunatly, Mr. Hamilton wasn't around when Franklin "Deficit" Roosevelt declared the United States technical bankrupt and hypothecated all of the real property, goods, and services to the privately owned Federal Reserve banking cartel.

Your rebuttal is not proportional to the end of refuting the logical argument above.

eh, I think it is good. The city needs to know they can't just do whatever they want whenever they want. Yeah it is only 10 bucks today but it will be 40-50 in 4 years. I think this case would have had more weight if a resident of the area filed. I wonder what residents do when they have a guest that is going to stay the night. From the article they can buy a pass, I wonder why they need to BUY the pass, that should be free, it will be a lot more than 2 bucks in a few years. Either way I don't think he will win. But I like the challenge. I guess the real issue is why aren’t guests of 7-peaks parking in their parking lot? Do they have adequate parking? Are they charging too much to park a car for the day? I’ll bet they are. Especially, since a car will be ticketed. On a side note, I doubt 7-peaks built in a residential neighborhood, my guess is they built the park and then contractors built and sold homes/condos. When I buy a home/condo I take into consideration the surrounding area. Like a train tracks, landfill, elementary school, farm or whatever, I don’t buy and then try to force change around me. I say buyer beware. If these residences purchased property knowing a swimming park existed surely they could imagine parking, noise, etc. A swimming park and residential neighborhood are two things that are difficult to have co-exist.