The city claims that people are hurting those poor granite curbs. Or something like that.

I think the city is pissed that people have been parking on their property for free, instead of dishing out $ each year for resident parking permits.

Too bad Menino doesn't feel like spending any money in JP on maintaining the roads, traffic signals, or road markings...we've had those cursed E-line tracks (which knock you off your bike, had it happen to me) for twenty three fucking years because the city can't be bothered to either pave over them, fill the channel in the track so they don't trap bike tires, or rip them up and fill in the hole. I bet dozens of bikers are injured every year- I saw an older woman take a really nasty fall last spring because of those fucking rails.

But hey, if the cobblestones up on Beacon Hill are a little loose, let's get some boys right over. Are their precious gas lantern mantles not up to snuff? Why, that's a city-wide emergency!

Having a driveway increases the valuation of your property when the assessors come around. If it isn't legal, and it shouldn't exist, it shouldn't add value to your property and you shouldn't have been taxed on it, right?

I wonder if anybody will file for an abatement on those grounds. It would be interesting to see if the city could be forced to pay out a lot of rebates.

"Now the city's telling people who pay taxes on their properties how to use them? I read the article, and I fail to see what the problem is here."

What no one is saying here (or in the linked article) is that when someone creates an unofficial driveway, they keep others on the street from parking in legal on-street spaces because those legitimate spaces are in front of the bogus driveways. From my perspective, it's not so much that anyone shouldn't be able to use their yard the way they'd like, but that it actually takes away rights from the community to park on the street. What's really wrong about this is that it wasn't enforced years ago; because of that, I think the city has to grandfather in the existing driveways and start enforcing the rules from here on out.

The home inspector should know that a parking spot without a curb cut is likely not up to code. Additionally, the potential buyer and/or his/her attorney can easily do the homework. First, look at the current deed on file at suffolkdeeds.com. If the property doesn't have a parking space, then you go to cityofboston.gov and you look to see whether a permit was granted to make one since the time the deed was recorded. If not, then this means that some jackass paved part of the yard and is trying to call it a parking space. If the seller *did* use a home inspector and/or an attorney, then s/he should go back to those people and ask to have the fees refunded.

Bottom line is, if you buy something with a code violation, it's still up to you, the owner, to have the place up to code at all times. It's just like buying a house with the front steps falling off and then complaining when you're ticketed "but I bought it that way!"

Just to let you guys know that here in Cincinnati and most everywhere in the country it is outside to standards of practice from the American Society of Home Inspectors & the National Association of Certified Home Inspectors to inspect for municipal code violations.

In regards to having a concrete parking pad obstructed by a finished curb, this would not be considered a defect in the eyes of a home inspector. The pad could be for ATV's, a future basketbal court, a shed foundation and etc. If the pad is in poor condition it will be reported as such. The home seller should be aware of the municipal codes in his or her neighborhood so if the obstructed pad was not mentioned in the disclosure agreement, there is a good chance the the seller concealed such an obvious "defect". Ignorance is not a good defense.