Dearborn says Commercial Vehicle, Owner Classic
Is the 1968 C10 Chevy panel wagon dressed with a custom graphic advertising Peder Blohm’s Internet business a commercial vehicle or a personal use one?
At a Dearborn Traffic Commission meeting on Tuesday at 7 p.m., Blohm will find out.
Is Peter Blohm's 1968 C10 Chevy panel wagon, pictured in the driveway of his Dearborn home, a commercial vehicle that is a nuisance to his neighbors or a personal use one?
Blohm’s “Beast”, the name he has affectionately given his ’68 Chevy, was recently found in violation of the city’s ordinance regulating commercial vehicles parked in residential neighborhoods. According to Blohm, he received two violation notices at his Dearborn home that were signed by a Residential Services employee (formerly Building and Safety) telling him he had until Oct. 2 to move the vehicle.
Blohm says he contacted Dearborn’s Residential Services and tried to explain that the vehicle was not a commercial vehicle, and that it was registered as a wagon, driven for personal and not commercial use, and displayed at local car cruises and car shows. Still, he says, the inspector insisted it was a commercial vehicle.
We’ve written on these pages a couple of weeks ago how Dearborn was stepping up its enforcement of its ordinance regulating commercial vehicles parked in residential neighborhoods (see earlier story, HERE).
In a way, you can’t blame the enforcement officers. They are being told by their leaders to write up every commercial vehicle they see following a slew of complaints from residents on this very topic. In a recent four day sweep of the city more than 160 citations were issued.
Blohm admits that his vehicle has colorful graphics for a member-based Web site, mynewmarketplace.com that he is part owner of, and which helps to connect buyers and sellers nationwide.
He says when he asked the inspector if he were to purchase a $300,000 Bentley, put graphics on the doors, and keep it parked in his driveway, would it be considered a commercial vehicle. The inspector quickly replied “yes.” Blohm said he was told that if he continued to park his vehicle in his driveway the city would fine him and he’d be taken to court.
Which is why he is headed to the city’s Traffic Commission meeting Tuesday night with a petition signed by all of his neighbors (all want the city to approve it) seeking an exception to the ordinance.
Dearborn police said they have been receiving so many complaints about commercial vehicles in neighborhoods that they decided to do a sweep of the entire city. Blohm’s situation, a home-based business, clearly would fall under the exception and he can apply for a permit that would allow him to park his car at home, just as a heating and cooling worker who is on call 24 hours a day would need to have his vehicle at home.
What’s interesting, Blohm says, is that the city of Dearborn’s ordinance has no clear definition of a commercial vehicle, Sec. 18-356 regarding parking of commercial vehicles includes, “This section shall not apply to pick-up trucks and vans utilized as family vehicles and which bear no commercial message, logo, symbol or equipment.”
Blohm agrees that the graphics on his vehicle appear to be the sticking point. He says his greater concern is the lack of courtesy and customer service from the Residential Services department.
“The inspector can’t be faulted for the fuzziness of the regulations, but the attitude of ‘enforcement’ rather than customer service presents a bigger problem for the City and seems to be part of the culture,” Blohm said. “I was never asked what kind of work I do, how I use the vehicle or offered any alternatives.”
Blohm later learned he could pay $50 and apply to the Traffic Commission for an exception, which is he has done.
“My wife and I love Dearborn or we wouldn’t continue to live and work here,” Blohm said. “We appreciate all the City services and agree that maintaining your property and safety is foremost. However, this seems ridiculous. During times when people are struggling to pay their bills and working from their homes; taking on second or third jobs, wouldn’t it be more reasonable to have the City concentrate its resources to help homeowners, self-employed workers and businesses stay here?”
September 27th, 2011 at 7:10 am
Nice free ad for Mr. Blohm’s business. I just went to the link, and guess what–after a 3 month free trial, you have to pay for membership. Uhmm..doesn’t that make it a business..and doesn’t that make his vehicle a commercial vehicle advertising his business? Oh, that’s right, Dearborn ordinances are always for some but not all.. what a crock.
September 27th, 2011 at 10:17 am
Obviously a commercial vehicle.
September 27th, 2011 at 10:37 am
Sec. 18-63. – Commercial vehicle.
Commercial vehicle shall mean and include all motor vehicles used for the transportation of passengers for hire; constructed or used for transportation of goods, wares or merchandise; and/or all motor vehicles designed and used for drawing other vehicles and not so constructed as to carry any load thereon, either independently or any part of the weight of a vehicle or load so drawn.
(Ord. No. 81-103, § 1.11, 11-4-81)
State law reference— Similar definition, MCL 257.7, MSA 9.1807.
This comes from the City of Dearborn website. I am no attorney, but, I do not see anything referenced in this definition of “commercial vehicle” that says having a logo on a vehicle defines it as commercial. Oh, just hold your horses, there, you Perry Mason wannabe:
Section 18-356 is a mess! (Parking of Commercial Vehicles) look it yourself at the cityofdearborn.org website. It’s arduous.
So, what if you have a pick-up with a great, big FORD logo on it? I would assume that a vehicle with the word RAM would get a citation. Aren’t those commercial messages?
Confused yet?
I smell another lawsuit. Probably not as sexy as the Somers legal debacle, but one that comes to the surface because of “stepped-up enforcement” (what a crock)
September 27th, 2011 at 4:50 pm
Mr. Deep, couldn’t this person just park his truck in the garage? End of problem.
September 27th, 2011 at 7:39 pm
I just got back from a meeting of the Dearborn Traffic Commission, who decides who is going to get parking permits for commercial vehicles in Dearborn among many other issues.
The Commission concluded unanimously that my “Beast” is not a commercial vehicle, as it does not fulfill the requirement in the city’s statue 18-63 regarding definition of commercial vehicles.
Commercial vehicle shall mean and include all motor vehicles used for the transportation of passengers for hire; constructed or used for transportation of goods, wares or merchandise; and/or all motor vehicles designed and used for drawing other vehicles and not so constructed as to carry any load thereon, either independently or any part of the weight of a vehicle or load so drawn.
So they can not give me a special parking permit, as that classifies the “Beast” as a commercial vehicle with a special parking permit. They told me it is up to the city’s legal department to proof that it is.
September 27th, 2011 at 11:44 pm
Some people, in order to claim their vehicles on their taxes as a business expense, must have signage on the vehicle to qualify. So the way I see it commercial vehicle vehicle to the tax man, commercial vehicle to the city. The definition of “Cake eater” having your cake and eating too. Take off the commercial signage, pay the tax man his due and then safely park on Dearborn streets!
September 28th, 2011 at 12:47 pm
Real balls exercised by the Traffic Commission. Did the Big Boy tell you how to handle this? It sure sounds like you were told what to do, if you want your reappointment to the Commission that is.
October 28th, 2011 at 12:36 pm
He could probably get around all of this by just parking his car in the garage. That’s what a garage is for, by the way.
October 28th, 2011 at 12:44 pm
I agree with the naysayers. You can’t have your cake and eat it too. I don’t care if “the beast” is a vintage car. It still ADVERTISES YOUR BUSINESS which leads me to believe that by virtue of the ad, you’ve made it a commercial vehicle. Why the Commission agreed that it isn’t is beyond me. Perhaps “offwiththeir heads” is correct. The laws are for some and not all. By the way, Mr. Blohm. I don’t know who bought the building your business resides in on Michigan Avenue but they sure haven’t been taking care of it as well as the previous owners. It used to be one of the nicest and neatest on Michigan Avenue. The grass now looks like someone chewed it up.