arizona parking
What is the legal definition of at the entrance (parking sign law)
<p>This is specifically in regards to parking sign law in Mesa, AZ.</p>
<p>The legal wording is</p>
<blockquote>
<p>The owner or the agent of the owner of any private parking area shall be deemed to have given consent to unrestricted parking by the general public in such parking area unless such parking area is posted with signs as prescribed by this Section which are clearly visible and readable from any point within the parking area and at each entrance thereto.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>I could not find a clarification of what &quot;at the entrance&quot; means. I can see two interpretations:</p>
<ol>
<li><p>Physically situated at the entrance.</p>
</li>
<li><p>Clearly visible and readable from the entrance.</p>
</li>
</ol>

<p>Because the ordinance does not say &quot;and <em>from</em> each entrance&quot;, it cannot be interpreted to mean that the signs must both be visible and readable anywhere in the area as well as being visible and readable from the entrance. The use of distinct prepositions in the conjuncts means that the notice requirement can be satisfied by different signs: it's not that a sign has to have both properties.</p>

<p>The answer is in the text:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>[...] unless such parking area is posted with signs [...] which are clearly visible and readable [...] and at each entrance thereto.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>I read this as an inclusive and: it needs to be both readable and also at each entrance, but it can be a different sign from those visible at each spot of the place.</p>

<p>Your question seems to be whether it's</p>
<blockquote>
<p>posted with signs as prescribed by this Section which are (clearly visible and readable from any point within the parking area) and (at each entrance thereto).</p>
</blockquote>
<p>or</p>
<blockquote>
<p>parking area is posted with signs as prescribed by this Section which are clearly visible and readable from (any point within the parking area and at each entrance thereto).</p>
</blockquote>
<p>The latter seems like the more reasonable interpretation. It requires the least parallelization, for one thing. Furthermore, it seems reasonable to read an ambiguity in the way the has the least effect. Since the latter interpretation would result in a smaller set of circumstances in which the owner shall be deemed to have given consent, this principle favors the latter interpretation.</p>

<p>There are multiple methods of reading legal texts. A literal approach is common, but not always the most effective. This can be seen by the 3 previous answers, which all took a textual approach, but came to different conclusions. Indeed, the text is literally ambiguous.</p>
<p>Another common approach is to read the text in order to discover the intent of the lawmaker. That's a productive approach here. The lawgiver intends to protect the users of the parking lot against hidden charges. This interest is best matched by your second interpretation: a sign must be visible at each entrance, so that drivers know that parking is not unrestricted.</p>
