Parellism -- I'm very confused

[ananddaboor]

In a previous thread, a staff member explained two part Parallelism in the following way:

there are two kinds of parallel signals: ONE-PART (such as "and", "or", "but"), and TWO-PART (such as "not only ... but also", "both ... and").

in the second, the part that's "locked in" by the signal and is in florida. therefore, the parallel construction would be just in nevada.
since that construction is there, the sentence is parallel:
i worked
in nevada
and
in florida.

--

for completely analogous reasons, this sentence would be fine either with or without your second "that":

an increase that
would amount to roughly five miles per gallon
and
would represent...

an increase
that would amount to roughly five miles per gallon
and
that would represent...

Why is it then that the following sentence is wrong:

I want to retire to a place WHERE
I can relax
AND
the taxes are low

Is it because the first clause begins with the word 'I' and the second begins with 'the' (parallel clauses must start with the same word)? If so, would this be okay?

I want to retire to a place WHERE
I can relax
AND
I will have the chance to play golf.

[mschwrtz]

Why is it then that the following sentence is wrong:

I want to retire to a place WHERE
I can relax
AND
the taxes are low

Who says that it's wrong? I find it awkward, because and seems at first to join relax to... wait, there's no verb there... oh, it joins I can relax to the taxes are low.

If you wrote I want to retire to a place where I can relax and where the taxes are low, you'd lose that momentary confusion.

Some people will even use a comma before the and, to suggest that whole clauses, not just verbs etc., are parallel. That's OK too.

Now, is this one of our own examples? A GMATPrep example?