Posted on 02/18/2003 8:12:49 AM PST by pttttt
Snow removal
Policies on sidewalk snow removal vary throughout the Quad-Cities.
Davenport and Bettendorf take an aggressive stance, to the point of clearing your walks and billing you for it if you dont do it yourself.
Rock Island is just the opposite; although the city would like you to clear your walks, its legal department says sidewalks are on public property and homeowners cant be forced to clear them.
Here is the rundown:
Davenport
Sidewalks must be cleared of ice and snow within 10 hours after the end of a snow greater than two inches. If not, the city can hire a contractor to clear your walks and assess the cost to you. City employees respond to complaints and personally monitor walks within a three-block radius of schools. For questions, call 326-7704.
Bettendorf
Sidewalks must be cleared within 48 hours after snow ceases. If not, property owners are sent a courtesy letter warning them that if the walks are not cleared within 24 hours of the time the letter was written, a contractor will clear the walk and the cost will be assessed to them. Priority is given to complaints, walks around schools and walks used by joggers, such as those along Tanglefoot Lane or Devils Glen Road. The minimum cost is $50 per hour. For questions, call 344-4055.
Moline
Sidewalks must be cleared of ice and snow within a reasonable time after a storm ends. Reasonable means within 12 hours, or if the storm stops during the night, within 12 hours after daylight. For questions, call 797-0475.
Rock Island
The city doesnt have a policy on removal or enforcement. Our legal department is of the opinion that we cannot force people to clean our property, Bob Hawes, public works director, says. Since sidewalks are on public right-of-way, it is public property. For questions, call 793-3465.
East Moline
Sidewalks must be cleared of ice and snow within 24 hours after the snow stops falling. For questions, call 752-1573.
Yeah... it would be MUCH better if I were sued for not doing a perfect job cleaning off the city's sidewalk that I don't own and am required by law to clean.
The problem here is liberalism. Liberals constantly take what people do out of the good of their hearts (clean sidewalks, feed the poor, etc.) and make it a govt. function and/or law. So the nice person who does it as charity now does it at gun point. Fun!
Completely false in the suburbs of Montgomery County, MD. The utilities are under the street or under the 10 foot wide grass strip between the sidewalk and the street.
What really ticks me off is that I live on a corner and I have done the whole sidewalk only to have the city plow zoom by and bury my sidewalk so bad with heavy snow from the street that I can't clear it off without a snowblower. I noticed with this latest snow which wasn't too bad that the plows did the same on the side streets as well. My son usually gets over in time to help out now.
What's a sidewalk? :^)
Come to think of it, what's snow? I seem to have forgotten since I moved from Ohio.
That may not apply everywhere. When my parents lived in Ohio they learned that one someone starts to shovel, they have taken responsibility for the safety of that sidewalk.
Most of the time my husband doesn't shovel the walk or the driveway. I'd rather walk on 6 inches of snow than slide on the 1/4 inch of ice left over if he can't get to the concrete.
Frankly, I think the number of choices that you offer is quite limited. There is the alternative of leaving the sidewalk unshoveled and letting natural melting run its course. People know the risks of snow-covered sidewalks. Or, another alternative is to not have sidewalks at all (as is the case in the development in which I reside).
That was true in Ohio as well; make an effort to clear the walk and you'd better do it right. Otherwise, you've created a more serious hazard since you've presumably drawn the poor pedestrian into a false sense of security on your shoveled, but icy sidewalk. Leave the snow and they can see straight up what the hazards are.
Or, they are on poles along the rear lot line as was the case in many neighborhoods in Cleveland, Ohio (and its older suburbs). And the easement in any case is simply to allow the utilities in question to maintian their equipment. None - phone, electric, gas, water - require the homeowner to maintain their equipment. They only require that you let them do so.
Of course this doesn't require the homeowner to clear snow off of his sidewalk either. The laws requiring homeowners to maintain government owned sidewalks is wrong. The government should get rid of what it owns but refuses to maintain.
The sidewalks were there when the people moved in, and are a convenience (and I'll add - a necessity in dense, heavily trafficed areas) to all in the community. In other words, you're on notice when you move in that it is a duty that runs with the property.
This requirement keeps tax rates (and the requistie bureacracy that come with it) down - because if the city cleaned it, I will guarantee it will be very expensive.
You utopians will come up with all kinds of sophistry to avoid doing 10 minutes work and to slough off your duties on everyone else.
A ruling in Ohio (I recently moved from there) a few years ago essentially supports not shoveling the sidewalk unless you are willing to take full responsibility for slips and falls. It also went on to say that it is better to not shovel than to do a half-hearted job and end up with ice rather than snow. I suspect that things are different in your locale.
I don't know how things are here in Tennessee, but I don't have a sidewalk to shovel, assuming that I could get out to do so before it melts anyway. This is, by the way, a new development in a semi-rural area. I'm certain that inner city areas do have sidewalks for the most part.
There was recently in this City a bunch or sidewalk paving districts ordered (and paid for by the people who abut the sidewalks) in because a drunk kid was speeding, lost control of the car he borrowed, and killed a man who was out walking with his infant daughter. The little girl was injured, but survived. It became a campaign issue -- although both sides were in favor of building sidewalks. The only difference was if the people on the street had to pay part of the cost or the City pay all of it (which means ALL taxpayers pay).
Sadly, governments are always using anecdotes and unique situations to leverage a little more money out of taxpayers. One death doesn't equal an epidemic, nor does it warrant sidewalks throughout a city. I think the issue should have been solved by the individuals in the nieghborhood - at least let them make the deciding vote (and pay the full cost).
I'm guessing that the family of the deceased is sueing the city. Frankly, the drunk driver ought to assume full responsibility for the death, not the city or anybody else. Period. (I'm on the edge of another exciting anti-lawyer rant - please stop me). This stretching of the cause-effect line is one of the many tort problems this country is facing.
Maybe that is the difference between the suburbs (basically all of Montgomery County is a suburb of Washington D.C.) with 1/4 acre and larger lots, and cities? The water and sewer lines are all under the street. Gas is under the grass strip. Montgomery County will fine you $50 if you don't shovel your sidewalk. If you're out of town during the snow the fines just keep adding up...
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.