Could the OP also store it in a garage when not working on it (but otherwise wheeling it into the driveway to work on it)? My brother does this, but in that case it's a gated driveway and not publicly viewable.

What actually triggered the violation and the enforcement? It sounds like the vehicle has been inoperative (and registered as such) for years and the warning only came after OP started repairs. But the repairs are not the actual problem; they are just presumably what brought attention to the car, right?

"You might also be able to erect a 6' tall opaque fence around the car" -- in Table 3-13-6(c) at your link, the row describing the fence option shows prohibited for inoperative vehicles.

"What actually triggered the violation and the enforcement" - probably a neighbor who didn't care about the car until the restoration noise started.

That's such an oddly specific law. What's the motavation behind it? How did it get instroduced in the first place? I'd understand it if it was more of a general law "don't display trash in public" but why vehicles specifically?

@ToddSewell If you read the link, it does list a lot of other things also, such as unmaintained swimming pools and trash. It would be very easy to argue that an inoperable vehicle is not trash, so seems reasonable it has to be mentioned separately.

@ToddSewell Most likely the real purpose of the law is to stop people using their home as a motor repair business (and therefore not paying business taxes, not complying with environmental pollution or health and safety regulations, etc).

So I can park my bicycle on my driveway, unless it has a flat tire? Odd laws.

@gerrit surely a bicycle with a flat tire isn’t “wrecked” or “inoperative”? It might be unpleasant for the rider and damaging for the tires, but it’s still completely possible to ride it.

@alephzero Actually I think the "real" purpose of these laws is community standards, property values, and beautification. Nobody likes being the neighbor of the guy who has 2-3 project cars in their driveway rusting out, especially when it comes time to sell your house.

@RonBeyer I thought this was supposed to be the land of the free. I can't believe people bother with caring about stuff like that.

@AzorAhai--hehim Obviously it's not totally free. Laws in the US seem to care about a lot of things that others would consider trivial (and I'm sure you could find the same in many other "free" countries).

Respectfully, a house is a very valuable asset. Owning one is a responsibility that I take very seriously. And if it cost me $20,000 when it came time to sell my house because the next door neighbor had a clunker rusting in his driveway, I'd be pissed.

@RobertHarvey And that's where it should end ... you being pissed. It's amazing people want to (and succeeded in!) criminalize reducing property values in this way. The entitlement is unbelievable.

An acquaintance of mine once lived in a subdivision that had a rule that you could not park a pickup truck in front of your house. They seemed to think it implied low class or something. Given the number sold to non-trades folks that seems quite anachronistic.

@AzorAhai--hehim Reducing your property value is almost equivalent to stealing that money from you.

There are communities that have rules about maintaining lawns, although I think these tend to be homeowner association rules, not civic laws.

@Barmar Hahaha so when the cool restaurant around the corner closes and everyone's property values go down, does everyone deserve money from the owner? When the town dies because all the coal jobs have gone away, does the wind industry owe everyone money? Again, the entitlement is crazy ... be responsible for your own home and the land you bought.

@AzorAhai: Oh, so now entitlement is what happens when you invest the time, money and energy into an asset, and someone comes along and screws that up. Nice. You must be one of those folks who also believes that being required to wear a mask in public violates your civil rights.

@RobertHarvey Hahaha, I absolutely am not. I'm left of you. Even so, it's unbelievable to me that people think they should be able to regulate other people's property to increase the value of their own. That is not the same as enforcing rules to keep other people healthy and alive. Life > property. When you buy a house, no one guarantees you'll make a profit on your house. What's next, making a law that the value of your asset can only go up?

You're making the wrong argument. The regulation is not there to increase the value; it's there to prevent the value from decreasing due to other people's actions.

Same difference

Nope.

I've heard this tired argument many times before. It's a form of envy. You have the same opportunity as anyone else to buy property and watch it appreciate. And when you do, you'll feel the same way as I do. You won't want the actions of others to reduce your property's value. That you choose not to participate in this form of enterprise doesn't lessen the importance of doing it right.

I own property

I still recognize that it's situated within a neighborhood and home prices are not affected solely by the material contained within my lot. Everyone knows that when they buy a house, it's not like the rules have changed.

Then you should understand how important it is to protect its value. There are many people who have a vested interest; the bank who holds the loan on your propery, other neighbors. Your wind farm example has many vested interests also. The guy who owns the jalopy is only interested in his piece of junk.

So you would be OK with me building an open-pit wastewater treatment plant in the lot behind your house, effectively bringing your property values to zero?

My neighbors do not have a vested interest in my property

Of course they do.

That's why HOA's exist.

We're not talking about HOAs, we're talking about laws

@RonBeyer: I'm pretty sure that's a straw man.

The HOA is merely the existence proof of neighborhood interests.

The law is what it is; you can't have a jalopy sitting in your driveway. If you want the law changed, go lobby to get it changed. Don't expect much sympathy, however.

Yeah, so if you want to agree with your neighbors to keep your values high by agreeing to rules, that's fine.

@RobertHarvey Not really, happened in my hometown, property on a river was open and there was a developer who put in a certain type of recycled paper plant that used anaerobic process to break down the paper, it stunk, effectively quartering the property values in the area

@AzorAhai--hehim That's essentially what the jalopy law is.

@RonBeyer Not sure how much relevance that has to a clunker in a driveway. Yes, I would have a problem with that, too.

The relevance is that there are laws to protect property values, either via zoning or aesthetics because a local economy only works if people want to live there and want to treat it nicely, if it is allowed to degrade into a slum, be it by industrialization or low-brow citizens driving prices lower and lower, it isn't in the cities best interest

many area's of Detroit have this issue currently

Pretty much making my point.

@RobertHarvey I was arguing on your side, specifically to make the point clearer :)

I'm just saying it's baffling to me that in a country that prizes individual freedom so highly we've codified laws that regulate behavior in this way. On the other hand, what's more American than using the legal system to make yourself wealthier?

Well, I live in California where, if you want to build your own house, you need 20 grand before you turn the first shovel of dirt. My brother built a house in Texas, and all he needed was a $500 set of blueprints.

But it's still not regulation-free in Texas. There are plenty of things you can't do on your own property there.

And yes, in America (as in many other countries), you do have the right to do things that would enrich yourself. Everyone has that opportunity. That's where the freedom comes from.

Not by having the freedom to do things that degrade other people's value.

@AzorAhai--hehim So to summarize, you have a preconceived notion about the level of personal freedoms afforded to citizens of the US, and this law conflicts with that notion, hence the law is wrong/unjust? Perhaps you need to recalibrate what you believe the level of freedoms are for the average citizen. Perhaps your views on how many freedoms are actually afforded to citizens are colored by vocal minorities in the US?

There are many many many examples of what some might consider "personal freedoms" which are curtailed and regulated by local, state, and federal laws. Most people don't make a stink about it because it's common place and baked into the system and it's all they know. See, e.g., "No Shirt, No Shoes, No Service" (which is a limit people readily accept) vs "No Mask, No Admittance" (which many people actively fight).

@zephyr I'm an American who owns a house in America. Obviously I want my house to increase in value. Personally, I don't think it should be against the law for my neighbors to park a broken-down car in their own driveway because it affects the value of my asset. It seems like Robert is okay with making it against the law to do anything that "degrades other people's value." I am not quite that authoritarian, and I'm happy with that. Investments aren't a guarantee.

Deeds used to ban selling to Black people, in order to avoid reduction of property values. I hope everyone here would oppose that sort of restriction.

against the law to do anything that "degrades other people's value." -- I didn't make that assertion.

@AzorAhai--hehim I don’t see how this is using the law to make sure self wealthier. It’s using the law to prevent others reducing your wealth.

Coming from a non-US country, this law does seem weird to me too. Although TBH I don't know if similar laws don't exist in my country either. I can see why some people want it, but it also seems so... arbitrary. There are so, so many things that can influence your real estate value. I think you cannot possibly regulate all of them; or even a significant fraction to make a difference.

So this law in particular - I don't think it really achieves its purpose. I doubt the property values would go significantly down if it was removed and people started keeping whatever they wanted in their yards. Then again, that's just my speculation.