[Noisebridge-discuss] Who do we want to exclude? [Drama]

Aly Kaplan alykaplan at gmail.com
Sat Apr 13 03:13:48 UTC 2013


Y
es.


In this sense... people are obstructions in much the same way that they are
obstructions to justice by filming police.
The interpretation or willingness of those imposing the law is not always
synonymous with a dictionary definition, unfortunately.
The fact that it is used in a way that is NOT synonymous with the
dictionary definition leads me to believe that at the very least, the
dictionary definition may not be sufficient to define obstruction.
Similarly, many laws DO define obstruction very clearly in their contexts.
(In San Francisco, a vehicle on a sidewalk is considered an "obstruction".)

I realize this doesn't particularly add to the conversation of who to
exclude, and we've gone off on quite a tangent.
I simply dislike when others impose something as law when this isn't even
clearly stated as such.
(Yes, I do not take the total of your links to mean what you have stated. I
think you have imposed something onto it.)

The ambiguity in the law is certainly intentional, though!


On Fri, Apr 12, 2013 at 3:41 PM, Mitchel McAllister
<xonimmortal at yahoo.com>wrote:

> "People standing on the fire escape are obstructions" are my words. They
> are also common sense.
>
> Here's an experiment. Stand in the doorway between the stairs and the
> space. Don't move. See how many people can go through the doorway.
>
> Now, try this: lock the door to the space, from the inside, as is required
> by law for doors to a fire escape. See how many people can come in.
>
> Even if you maintain (absent common sense) that people standing on the
> fire escape are not obstructions, they would still be unable to come back
> into the space if we adhere to the requirement that the door be locked so
> that people can not enter the space from the fire escape.
>
> And yes, re-entering is entering. Re-enter means "to enter again".
>
> What I am seeing, far in excess of suggested solutions, is a bunch of
> people kicking their heels and screaming "you can't make me".
>
> Guess what? Throwing tantrums isn't excellent either, unless you accept
> the expanded and broadened meaning of "whatever one wants to do, regardless
> of how it affects others".
>
>
> - Reverend Mik McAllister
> ------------------------------
> "You can see the summit but you can't reach it
> Its the last piece of the puzzle but you just can't make it fit
> Doctor says you're cured but you still feel the pain
> Aspirations in the clouds but your hopes go down the drain"
>  - Howard Jones, "No One Is To Blame"
> ------------------------------
> Purveyor of Subversive Fiction
> http://www.prismandink.com
> http://www.lunatextpublications.com
>
> --- On *Fri, 4/12/13, Andrew Byrne <andrew at pachakutech.com>* wrote:
>
>
> From: Andrew Byrne <andrew at pachakutech.com>
> Subject: Re: [Noisebridge-discuss] Who do we want to exclude? [Drama]
> To: "Mitchel McAllister" <xonimmortal at yahoo.com>
> Cc: "NoiseBridge Discuss" <noisebridge-discuss at lists.noisebridge.net>,
> "Aly Nb" <alykaplan at gmail.com>
> Date: Friday, April 12, 2013, 3:18 PM
>
>
> " people standing on the fire escape are obstructions" <-- are those your
> words, or the law? If the latter, then I would point out a seemingly
> glaring confound in the law, if the former, your confusion; it would seem
> the quoted law even makes an example of cases (not ours) where people are
> often to be found. The only way I can see that line making a lick of sense
> is if one can legally occupy /only/ Useable Open Spaces, which is not
> really the domain of the fire code. It's not like it's a designated smoking
> area or something. -dru
> On Apr 12, 2013 2:24 PM, "Mitchel McAllister" <xonimmortal at yahoo.com<http://mc/compose?to=xonimmortal@yahoo.com>>
> wrote:
>
> --- On Fri, 4/12/13, Aly Kaplan <alykaplan at gmail.com<http://mc/compose?to=alykaplan@gmail.com>>
> wrote:
> > I'd like to see the law that says this is illegal -- it certainly isn't
> > according to SF Fire Code.
> >
> > However, it is always good to be excellent to your neighbors.It may also
> > be prohibited on your lease.
>
> Retrieved from
> http://www.amlegal.com/nxt/gateway.dll?f=templates&fn=default.htm&vid=amlegal:sanfrancisco_ca
>
> San Francisco Fire Code 1030.2.1 [Chapter 10 "Means of Egress"]
>    Fire escapes and related balconies, ladders, landings, and operating
> devices shall not be obstructed in any manner. No object shall be stored on
> or attached to a fire escape without the approval of the fire code official.
>
> San Francisco Building Inspection Commission (BIC) Codes Sec. 908
>    All safety devices or equipment provided for in this chapter shall be
> maintained in good repair at all times. Fire escapes shall be kept clear
> and unobstructed and be readily accessible at all times. Upon inspection,
> the property owner, or authorized agent, shall demonstrate to the Director
> or designated personnel, that all existing fire escapes are fully
> operational and properly maintained. Upon completion of the inspection, all
> existing fire escapes shall be secured pursuant to Section 1110.3.1. of the
> San Francisco Fire Code.
>
> San Francisco Planning code Article 1.2 SEC. 135.  USABLE OPEN SPACE FOR
> DWELLING UNITS AND GROUP HOUSING, R, NC, MIXED USE, C, AND M DISTRICTS.
>  (f)(3)     Fire Escapes as Usable Open Space. Normal fire escape grating
> shall not be considered suitable surfacing for usable open space. The steps
> of a fire escape stairway or ladder, and any space less than six feet deep
> between such steps and a wall of the building, shall not be credited as
> usable open space. But the mere potential use of a balcony area for an
> emergency fire exit by occupants of other dwelling units (or bedrooms in
> group housing) shall not prevent it from being credited as usable open
> space on grounds of lack of privacy or usability.
>
> People standing on the fire escape are obstructions. Fire escapes are not
> open space.
>
> However, I also noticed that we are in violation because the fire escape
> door is not locked against people entering from outside, which seems to be
> the focus of a lot more codes, ordinances, and case law.
>
>
> - Reverend Mik McAllister
> "You can see the summit but you can't reach it
> Its the last piece of the puzzle but you just can't make it fit
> Doctor says you're cured but you still feel the pain
> Aspirations in the clouds but your hopes go down the drain"
>  - Howard Jones, "No One Is To Blame"
> Purveyor of Subversive Fiction
> http://www.prismandink.com
> http://www.lunatextpublications.com
> _______________________________________________
> Noisebridge-discuss mailing list
> Noisebridge-discuss at lists.noisebridge.net<http://mc/compose?to=Noisebridge-discuss@lists.noisebridge.net>
> https://www.noisebridge.net/mailman/listinfo/noisebridge-discuss
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Noisebridge-discuss mailing list
> Noisebridge-discuss at lists.noisebridge.net
> https://www.noisebridge.net/mailman/listinfo/noisebridge-discuss
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://www.noisebridge.net/pipermail/noisebridge-discuss/attachments/20130412/d81638bf/attachment.html>


More information about the Noisebridge-discuss mailing list