Sidewalk Snow Removal Laws - Nanny Governments Cause Heart Attacks (my title)

Quad Cities Times (Iowa) ^ | unknown | none

[69ConvertibleFirebird]

Or, the City can do nothing and pay a multi-million dollar settlement when someone slips on the ice and sues.

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!

[69ConvertibleFirebird]

The reason the sidewalks are on public property (right-of-way) is because that is where most of the utilities run.

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.

[Revolting cat!]

And then they have the nerve to tell us which side of the road to drive on, and even when to stop the vehicle and when to start moving it again, and to top it off, what currency to use to buy something like chewing gum! Enough of this fascist totalitarian liberal nanny government, I say! And don't get me started on the tags attached to the mattresses you buy in this nanny government country! My dad, if he were alive and 92 years olds, wouldn't be able to read them without his glasses! I'll stop before I go out and start a violent revolution and government overthrow!

[Aliska]

I've been turned in once already. They really get tough on you if you don't get your walks cleared.

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.

[meyer]

The city takes care of the streets. The home-owner can take care of the sidewalk. He/she takes care of his/her driveway, right? The sidewalk isn't that much more. Heck; the real killer is the end of the driveway anyway (not the sidewalk), where the salted snow from the road piles up.

What's a sidewalk? :^)

Come to think of it, what's snow? I seem to have forgotten since I moved from Ohio.

[Dianna]

Whoever told you that "act of God" thing has never been in court.

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.

[SamAdams76]

What I really hate is the open container law. So what if I have an open beer in my own car? I'm not drunk! And if I'm a passenger, so what if I am? People can drink coffee and soft drinks in their cars. Why not beer?

[meyer]

You did not answer what your choice was. Pay more taxes to hire people to shovel peoples sidewalks or pay more taxes on lawsuits. And, anyone who thinks that "Use at your own risk" acts on a lawyer like holy water to a vampire is a fool. Lawyers are not driven away that easily.

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).

[meyer]

I live near Chicago and thankfully we don't have oppressive sidewalk clearing laws. In fact, I refuse to clear mine due to the lawsuits that can be slappin on you if you clear your side and someone falls. Not clearing it becomes an "act of God".

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.

[meyer]

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.

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.

[Darnright]

"I personally would shovel the sidewalk in front of my house of my own free will. But pass a law that says I have to, and I'm very tempted to stop."

This brings up a good point. Why on earth are the elderly people in the cities being made to shovel sidewalks??? What the heck has happened to the concept of a NEIGHBOR taking care of the walk for the older person? Sheesh! Even if a city passes such a "must shovel" ordinance, there certainly has to be exceptions for the elderly and disabled.

Not to mention, since when is the going rate $50.00 to shovel a 50 or 60 foot strip of sidewalk? Kids should be RICH with prices like that.

[69ConvertibleFirebird]

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.

[jim_trent]

> 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.

Having worked on sewer and street designs in several cities, I can say that your setup is unusual.

[jim_trent]

> 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).

People knowing the risk has never stopped a lawyer yet. We also have places without sidewalks. However, they are more than 50 years old and it is not legal to construct a housing development without sidewalks anymore. Again, this is a result of increased expectations of the electorate and anyone who promises to "do something" without raising taxes by cutting waste, will be elected. Thats how these foolish laws come into being.

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).

[Chancellor Palpatine]

***snore***

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.

[Chancellor Palpatine]

Nobody said that a neighbor couldn't volunteer to do it.

[jim_trent]

> That may not apply everywhere.

True. And even where it applies, only a very few are sued and only a few of those are sued for more than their insurance coverage. So the odds are in your favor. A City, on the other hand, is sued regularly. I have given depositions and testimony on several occasions for things that should never have gone to court.

[Darnright]

>Nobody said that a neighbor couldn't volunteer to do it.

Exactly. However, I bet there are plenty of elderly that go with walks unshoveled simply because the neighbors don't think to help them.

There was an 80+ year old woman in our old neighborhood whose walks were the first shoveled. The men in on the block had a contest to see who could get to her first (c;

[meyer]

People knowing the risk has never stopped a lawyer yet. We also have places without sidewalks. However, they are more than 50 years old and it is not legal to construct a housing development without sidewalks anymore. Again, this is a result of increased expectations of the electorate and anyone who promises to "do something" without raising taxes by cutting waste, will be elected. Thats how these foolish laws come into being.

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.

[69ConvertibleFirebird]

Having worked on sewer and street designs in several cities, I can say that your setup is unusual.

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...