Paying for something you rarely use doesn’t mean it’s free for everyone else.

A tenant who doesn’t own a car pays for an assigned parking space included in his rent and keeps it available for visiting family members. After repeatedly finding unauthorized vehicles parked there, he began having them towed. While management supports the decision and is tightening enforcement, some of his coworkers argue he’s being unnecessarily harsh since he doesn’t personally use the spot every day.

I can totally relate to parking problems. This time in my life is the first time that I’m living in a building, and I assure you that having issues with spots and cars being towed is common. It usually starts as the OP explains: with a one-time situation that, as a tenant, you let it pass since it’s probably never going to happen again, especially in the case of their parking lot, where cars need to hang a sign to let everyone know that they are entitled to do so.

If you’re lucky enough, you won’t see this happening again. But if you’re not, you may start to deal with this issue pretty regularly. The tenant refused to let neighbors use his parking spot, even though he doesn’t have a car, but pays for that spot every month for visitors. Meaning, he’s entitled to do whatever he wants with that.

When he told his coworkers he started to tow cars whenever they would stay for a long time, he was called names and that he was overreacting for an empty spot most of the time. But I disagree: if I’m paying for it, I’ll have the cars removed. And, luckily for them, now the building has decided that everyone who’s parked and has no sign will get towed. Isn’t that the best for the OP?