OpenCDA

March 10, 2008

Fix Your Sidewalks – OR ELSE!

Filed under: General — Dan Gookin @ 2:55 pm

The City of Coeur d’Alene believes that it owns the sidewalks when its convenient for the City and you own the sidewalks when it’s inconvenient for you. That may soon change.

Recently City Hall sent out a second notice to property owners in Coeur d’Alene. Those folks who have crumbling or floating sidewalks have been ordered to fix them by June, or the City will fix them and place a lien on the property for the work, plus a $50 fee. Thank you very much, Mayor Bolem!

(By the way, the City of Post Falls fixes sidewalks as part of its general service to the population. No charge.)

The Fix-Your-Sidewalks bully notice has gone out to all sorts of homeowners, including the elderly, single mothers, and others who cannot afford the cost.

I spoke with one homeowner this morning. She told me that it would be about $2,200 to fix the section of sidewalk in front of her home. That’s a lot of money to come up with before June — and an odorous tax burden to pay after that when the lien is applied. Yet, the City, through the LCDC, spends 15 times that to hire a PR firm to make the LCDC look good. But I digress.

The question is, “Who owns the sidewalks?” To be compliant with the Americans for Disabilities Act (ADA), the City has applied for grant money from the Federal Government. They’re using that money only to put in ramps on the corners of the streets. The homeowner is then forced to do the rest of the repairs.

But according to a recent 9th Circuit ruling, they City may be in for a rude awakening. Here’s a quote from that ruling:

Requiring the City to maintain its sidewalks so that they are accessible to individuals with disabilities is consistent with the tenor of § 35.150, which requires the provision of curb ramps, “giving priority to walkways serving” government offices, “transportation, places of public accommodation, and employers,” but then “followed by walkways serving other areas.” 28 C.F.R. § 35.150(d)(2). Section 35.150’s requirement
of curb ramps in all pedestrian walkways reveals a general concern for the accessibility of public sidewalks, as well as a recognition that sidewalks fall within the ADA’s coverage, and would be meaningless if the sidewalks between the curb ramps were inaccessible.

That puts it well. I mean, what’s the point of making ramps on the corners when the rest of the sidewalk looks like an ice float? The entire ruling pretty much says that updating and maintaining sidewalks is one of the basic jobs for any city or municipality.

I certainly hope this ruling has some teeth here locally. The perception of Mayor Bloem, City Hall, and the LCDC is that they don’t like people who live here and prefer to replace us all with the “good people,” rich, part-time residents. They’re enforcement of this obtuse sidewalk rule confirms that to me.

For my take, I’d rather support the people who live here now than take their property tax dollars and give away no-bid contracts to well-connected city insiders and friends. They may claim that they don’t do that. But actions speak louder than words.

2 Comments

  1. I think the ruling reads that the complete sidewalk structure has to be consistent and handicap friendly. If the character of that sidewalk varies in construction from yard to yard, corner to corner then that could violate this principle. Of course that leaves open an opportunity for the city to dictate the contractor (no doubt a sole source with curious connections) to be used for the work. Another element to the city getting any grant money could be a time factor. They may need to present a concrete plan to insure the completion of “X” amount of work by a certain date. That could be hard to guarantee if the performance compliance is left up to individual home owners.

    How sad that this city, whose Mayor and council members pride themselves on their upscale visions for the future, is squeezing pennies from those least able to afford it for what is an obvious pubic works project. They have bent the rule book in two getting tax money into a church project and now plan to strong arm citizens to repair public sidewalks. Dollars to donuts they front the funds and assess the homeowners, placing liens on those unable or unwilling to pay. Repugnant. Truly repugnant that this even needs to be discussed.

    Comment by Wallypog — March 10, 2008 @ 3:42 pm

  2. Here are links to updates on settlements in the Barden and Nystrom cases.

    Barden v. Sacramento

    The January 2, 2004, settlement in Barden “…provides that for up to 30 years, the City of Sacramento will allocate 20% of its annual Transportation Fund to make the City’s Pedestrian Rights of Way accessible to individuals with vision and/or mobility disabilities. This will include installation of compliant curb ramps at intersections, removal of barriers that obstruct the sidewalk, including narrow pathways, abrupt changes in level, excessive cross slopes, and overhanging obstructions, and improvements in crosswalk access.”

    Here’s some information about a similar settlement.

    Nystrom v. Vacaville

    On November 13, 2006, the court accepted a proposed settlement in Nystrom v. Vacaville. The terms of that settlement are described in the link.

    In both Barden and Nystrom, the settlements essentially acknowledged the decision of the CA9 in Barden, that keeping sidewalks ADA accessible is the city’s job, not the homeowner’s. The settlement in Nystrom also has the city agreeing to make all new sidewalks ADA compliant.

    After reading this, particularly Barden, I’m really curious to see the basis for the City of Coeur d’Alene concluding that sidewalks are the homeowners’ responsibilities. Notice in both settlements the cities had to set aside money for decades.

    Comment by Bill — March 10, 2008 @ 6:25 pm

RSS feed for comments on this post.

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.

Powered by WordPress
Copyright © 2024 by OpenCDA LLC, All Rights Reserved