From the AL;
Historic area’s sidewalk brigade will scout smooth path to fitness
They will pick up litter as they go as part of the neighborhood’s almost annual spring cleanup. But they will have a new purpose this year to check sidewalks for bumps, cracks, debris and other hazards and then report the results to City Hall.
I wonder if they will get special armbands? So now he has volunteer kids turning people in for code enforcement issues. Here’s an idea, change city ordinance so the city is responsible for fixing THEIR property instead of the adjoining property owner. WE’RE in great financial shape, according to MMM. Heil Huether!
On the one hand – you use terminology that alienates yourself from the WE that is the government – casting government as THEM. – On the other hand, you embrace the WE-ism. Very conflicted. Are we us, and are we all us? Or are we not us at all – but them? Mirror, mirror on the wall……..
Or in the words of “W” – is we them?
As a sign that Hitler was losing the war he drafted boys. Recruiting preteens is a sign Huether has lost citizen support.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9efgLHgsBmM
Do they brown shirts?
Do they get brown shirts?
Shouldn’t one separate the issue of knowing whether the condition of sidewalks is impeding their use (how can that be bad?) from the discussion of how sidewalk maintenance and improvements are funded?
Furthermore, the value of sidewalk addition to a property accrues to the property owner. To do as you suggest – having the city take over the costs – effectively means that those people in areas without sidewalks (of which there are still some in this city) are now subsidizing an amenity that provides value to other people. How is that more equitable than the present system?
This whole scenario reminds me of the Beavis and Butthead characters “Pats” – positive acting teens. Nobody respects a narc.
Scott – They will probably will get some special certificate from the mayor if they find a crack.
Every sidewalk in the city is checked on a rotating basis.
If there is anything that needs repair, the city gives you “x” number of days to fix it or they do the work and slap a lien against your property.
So, if many citizens (in different neighborhoods) suddenly begin to see neon paint on their sidewalks courtesy of the city……..
As stated in today’s AL:
They will pick up litter as they go as part of the neighborhood’s almost annual spring cleanup. *But they will have a new purpose this year to check sidewalks for bumps, cracks, debris and other hazards and then report the results to City Hall.*
This another part of the narc on your neighbor project the city sent out recently. If you are upset with your neighbor call the city and we will help you go after them.
MMM stated as much in his Dem Forum talk. Piss off your neighbors and the city will find a way to assist you in retribution.
Anybody nark on Dunham for not mowing the grass on their commercial properties?
Dunham is the listing agent for a commercial property at 5th and Weber…..hasn’t been mowed in weeks…..was even on one of the local TV stations…..still not mowed!!
They must be too busy figuring out how to spend the millions they garnered in TIF money and money from COSTCO.
Maybe Dunham is getting a TIF to mow
I do know Dunham owns the vista tower, and that grass hasn’t been mowed once.
The city owns a strip of property directly behind my home. In years past they mowed it once a week, but this year I haven’t seen them. I’ve mowed it for them because it was about 10″ tall, and since it is so full of weeds I’ve also fertilized and sprayed it.
My neighbor refuses to mow hers, and it is now probably about 15″ tall. The grass has all gone to seed which isn’t a bad thing, however the dandelions are going to seed also and they will probably win the battle.
I suppose they will simply state they haven’t been able to get to it because of all the rain, but something tells me that excuse wouldn’t work if a homeowner tried it (besides – I’ve mowed their property twice, so I think they could find the time).
I thought about calling the city and asking them to write themselves a citation, but it sort of is a moot point since they would end up paying themselves a fine. 🙂
Oh well – maybe I’ll wait until the end of the year and send them an itemized bill for my time to mow their lawn. I’ll play the roll of an independent contractor…. and I have a fuel surcharge.
As to sidewalks this is a controversial subject but there are few issues with allowing the city to fix and maintain all the sidewalks.
Number one, we all know they would simply sub-contract out the work. This means independent contractors would be scouting for cracks and heaved walkways to keep themselves busy. So even if a sidewalk passed now, they would find a way to claim it needs to be replaced. This would increase costs significantly.
Also, since contractors would be paid by the city, they would not be obligated in any way to the homeowner, and they would no longer have a reputation to worry about. So those shrubs next to the sidewalk that they run over with their skid loaded don’t matter. Those large pieces of sod they tore up and those flowers they drove over? Too bad… they don’t have time to worry because they have another job down the street.
In theory, requiring the city to maintain the sidewalks is interesting, but how do you propose they pay for it? The city gains the majority of their money from sales taxes, so are you suggesting we raise sales taxes to help pay for sidewalks?
This is a regressive tax, because now you are asking those who don’t own homes to pay extra taxes to benefit those who do. You are also removing the burden from business owners and placing it upon the backs of the taxpayer. This also harms those with the lowest income far more than those at the top.
So what is the alternative? Add some type of special assessment on all property owners? Great – but what have you accomplished? Now if you own property you end up paying a fee to have your sidewalks repaired even though you may live in a home that doesn’t have sidewalks. If you own property you pay a fee for sidewalk repair even if you haven’t needed any repair in the past 25 years.
I have to ask – have you thought this through? It would actually hurt more homeowners than it would help, and/or it would harm the lower income purchaser. It would benefit the wealthy, the commercial property owner, and the private concrete contractor.
Plus when you mandate the city pays for sidewalk repairs, aren’t you suggesting they are responsible for snow and ice removal on “their property” as well?
You may disagree, but I really don’t want to pay 15% sales tax just so some cheapskate doesn’t have to pay $300 every decade to replace two sections of cracked concrete.
You broke Godwin’s Law. F-
You will need to start a new thread to make a more rational argument, as this one has been sullied by an irrational comparison to something much more heinous than code enforcement.
When kids squel on me I’ll stop buying girl scout cookies & school fund raiser raffle tickets.
Sidewalks are inside city right-of-way. It’s a city repair. They can’t force you to repair or pay because the courts & state do not recognize their civil procedures. Let them fix it and bill you. Mail the bill back notated ‘Take me to court because you can’t’.
And regarding #21, this is why you should never take legal advice from someone on a blog.
What happens when you don’t repair your sidewalk?
SDCL 9-46-3…
“Notice to adjoining property owners to construct or repair sidewalk–Service of notice–Contents. If the governing body deems it necessary to construct, rebuild, or repair any sidewalk, it shall notify all owners of lots adjoining such sidewalk to construct, rebuild, or repair the sidewalk at their own expense within a time designated.”
And SDCL 9-46-5:
“Assessment of sidewalk costs against abutting property.
The cost thereof shall be assessed against the lots fronting or abutting upon the sidewalk so constructed, reconstructed, or repaired, as provided in this title or hereinafter provided. In estimating such assessment the entire cost of the improvement fronting on the property to be assessed shall be divided by the number of feet fronting or abutting on the same, and the quotient shall be the sum to be assessed per front foot against each lot so fronting or abutting.”
In short, the property owner is responsible for the repair, and if the property owner refuses to do the repair, the municipality can have the repair done for them and can slap a lien on their property for the cost.
And in shorter, pathloss doesn’t know what he’s talking about.
You’re tight hornguy. Fact is, all these “property rights” folks haven’t advanced beyond a juvenile grade-schooler level of understanding how government works in regard to land use (including use of land as a titling or indemnifying instrument), or what “ownership” of real property really is (as opposed to what they believe it is) or what being a member of a participatory society requires of them. because they DON’T WANT TO.
Further, what cities may or may not do, must or must not do is determined NOT by the city governments, but by state law. Likewise, what states may or may not do, must or must not do is not determined by the states, but by the federal government/constitution. All this anti-city stuff is severely misplaced anger about being a member of general society – lacks maturity.
For all the ‘expert’ type opinions posted here there is the added complexity to discussing Sioux Falls, Home Rule Charter.
In many areas, Sioux Falls’ charter overrules state law. We can discuss state law applying to all units of government in South Dakota but cross into the city limits of Sioux Falls and all bets are off.
Sure, Testor. Except in this area it really doesn’t. In fact, by definition all bets are on except in those areas where the city proactively chooses to change or cancel the bet.
In principle, home rule isn’t a complicated concept. It merely allows municipalities that adopt it to view state laws permissively rather than restrictively. In other words, the city is free do anything not prohibited by the state, rather than have its activity restricted to just those things that have been authorized by the state. But state laws control in all areas where the municipality chooses to remain silent.
So state law controls except in those areas predominantly of municipal concern where the home rule municipality expressly chooses to do something else, and in which the state has not expressly disallowed variance. Home rule municipalities cannot, for instance, establish their own penalties for criminal activity.
Just my opinion here, but I think where home rule becomes confusing in these discussions is when some people assume that home rule negates all state laws in areas of primarily municipal concern.
In this case, city ordinances go out of the way to point to the controlling authority of SDCL 9-46. It’s footnoted in the TOC of Chapter 96. Our city ordinances cover little in this regard – some chatter about who pays for sidewalks on arterial streets and the specifications to which sidewalks must be constructed. And none of it is in conflict with the essence of SDCL 9-46. It really just provides additional detail not provided in state law.
It still doesn’t change the fact that PL has advised many people on code enforcement since he beat the city in the Supreme Court. I know of at least two incidences since they took his advise, the city hasn’t touched the parties since. He is right, the city can only ASK you to pay a fine in small claims, but once you ask it to be referred to a ‘real’ court, they give up, because they don’t have the authority to do so. I am no zoning genius, but I do know what a lein is, and last I checked it is NOT a code enforcement fine.
I don’t disagree. My point is that the controlling law in this regard is state law, since city ordinance is silent. Accordingly, the penalty isn’t a code enforcement fine, because the law being enforced isn’t a city ordinance.
Now, if the issue is that you didn’t consult with the city engineer before building your sidewalk, or make it the wrong width – those are code issues, absolutely. But the fundamental essence of what you’re addressing isn’t a code issue – it’s a state law.
The use of the children is kind of cynical.
Only in America can a property owner be held accountable and potentially liable for a sidewalk they do not own, while a gun manufacturer, in the same country, is often protected from product liability and “Deep Pocket” tort law concerns through specific legislation enacted to protect their self interests….
I hope our brighter lights down at City Hall are wise enough to instruct the children ahead of time not to touch any used condoms they may encounter while on litter duty.
anom – wrong thread for that.