Request By:
Mr. Clyde Patrick Logsdon
212 South Claggett Drive
Leitchfield, Kentucky 42754
Opinion
Opinion By: Steven L. Beshear, Attorney General; By: Walter C. Herdman, Assistant Deputy Attorney General
This is in response to your letter of April 21, in which you relate that the city council of the city of Leitchfield has installed "no parking" signs along your street which is comparatively narrow. Following the protests of a number of residents along the street, asking that the signs not be placed thereon, the council nevertheless voted to place one at each end of the street. The question is raised as to whether the city can ban parking along a residential street.
The Court of Appeals has pointed out in a number of cases that the city has complete control of the streets and no person can interfere with the city in the management of its streets. See City of Falmouth v. Pendleton County Court, 308 Ky. 526, 215 S.W.2d 101 (1948). It has also been held that parking is a privilege of the public and is incidental to the use of a street for travel, but subject to the exclusive right of the city council to control the use of its streets. See Blackburn v. City of Pineville, 313 S.W.2d 860 (1958); Gibson v. City of Hardinsburg, 247 S.W.2d 31 (1952); Triplett v. City of Corbin, 269 S.W.2d 188 (1954), and Allsmiller v. Johnson, 309 Ky. 695, 218 S.W.2d 28 (1949).
Referring to the case v. City of Marion, 221 Ind., 422, 47 N.E. (2d) 968, we find the court holding, in effect, that:
"An abutting owner has the same rights as other members of the public to use a street in front of his premises, and has the additional right of ingress and egress. When he parks his automobile in front of his premises he does so as a member of the public, and in so doing is subject to reasonable traffic and parking regulations. The right of ingress and egress includes the right to stop vehicles in front of his property for the purpose of loading and unloading passengers and merchandise, but it does not include the privilege of storing the abutting owner's automobile in front of his property."
Since the city has exclusive control over the streets, including residential areas, it can, because of the narrowness of the street, ban parking altogether. However, it cannot prevent a property owner's ingress and egress to his property.
Thus, the action taken by the city council in this instance appears to be perfectly legal.