Here's a quick summation of his contention of why Riley contends San Francisco's towing policy is bunk:
In letters to Riley, the city cited two justifications for towing his legally parked car after 72 hours: A city ordinance and a section of the state vehicle code allowingEven though the city has since changed its policy from waiting 72 hours to a week before hauling off legally parked cars, England told SF Weekly that doesn't alter her case: "The duration isn't the issue. The problem is, they don't provide notice," she said. "The heart of the problem is the city is essentially taking people's property without due notice. Under state law, signage is required."
for a vehicle to be towed when it "is parked or left standing upon a
highway for 72 or more consecutive hours in violation of a local
ordinance authorizing such removal."
The crux of Riley's
argument, however, is that no such ordinance exists here in San
Francisco. The aforementioned section of the city's Municipal
Transportation Code he claims city officials cited to him is Section 11.1 (a)(9);
this section outlines the myriad justifications for removing a private
citizen's car from city streets. But the very first clause begins "when
any legally required signage is posted giving notice..." The suit
maintains that no signage "regarding the towing of vehicles bearing
residential parking permit stickers" was present on the block Riley was
parked on -- and, what's more, "no such signage was posted within the
city limits of San Francisco."
As the suit sums it up,
"Plaintiff alleges that Defendant" -- that'd be the city -- "has a
policy practice and custom of towing ... otherwise legally parked
vehicles without proper notice and legal authority to do so." Riley's
complaint is a class-action suit as he believes -- logically -- that he
was not the only person whose car was towed due to a policy he claims
is legally problematic.