A friend of mine in the midtown area recently found this hanging on her doorknob:
Fix your sidewalks in Coeur d’Alene — or else!
I blurred part of the phone number on the flyer (above), but you can still see the prefix: 406. That’s Montana, folks. Word has gotten out that several hundred homeowners in Coeur d’Alene are being pressured by the City to fix the sidewalks. If the sidewalks are not fixed, then the City will do the work and place a tax lien against the property for the cost. That could be thousands of dollars. Isn’t that sweet?
The Mayor and City Council prattle endlessly about “workforce housing.” They boast about all the good they’ve done, pointing to brick-and-mortar structures as proof. They can amazingly find an instant $50,000 in the city’s sofa cushion (the LCDC) for a questionable need in City Park. They give themselves plaques commemorating how great they are. But when it comes to basic city services, City Hall just threatens its own citizens.
Some of the movers and shakers call this leadership.
Obviously, concrete contractors are delighted. On the back of the flyer you’ll find these “Sidewalk FAQs!”:
There are several reasons our company is reaching out to the property owners this summer.
#1) With the rising cost of Fuel and cement, the price to get these sidewalks renovated will only go up. Our costs have increased 10% over last summer. We have to pass these increases onto the property owners.
#2) The City of Coeur d’Alene is currently examining different options on how to handle passing the expense of the sidewalk renovation program on to the taxpayers and property owners. In the March 23rd edition of the Press, a story claimed the City will contract Companies at there [sic] own will and pass the cost of expense on to the property owner. Right now, you have the opportunity to get private bids and secure the best possible price.
#3) We are working hard this summer so there won’t be delays in getting your projects finished by deadline.
Expect more posts on this sidewalk issue next week. It may be just 400 property owners now. But the City is required by the Federal Government to fix all the sidewalks. That means yours, whether you have a sidewalk now or not.
As I read Barden v City of Sacramento, the City of Coeur d’Alene cannot force residents to pay for the sidewalks. As I understand it, the US Supremes denied certiorari to the appeal, so the CA9 decision should be the law in in 9th Circuit, right? “Title II’s prohibition of discrimination in the provision of public services applies to the maintenance of public sidewalks, which is a normal function of a municipal entity. The legislative history of Title II indicates that all activities of
local governments are subject to this prohibition of discrimination.” Seems to me the City of Coeur d’Alene is trying to require the property owner to assume maintenance of public sidewalks, which is a normal function of a municipal entity.
Comment by Bill — April 9, 2008 @ 12:40 pm
Has anyone brought the case of Barden v City of Sacramento to the attention of any of the homeowners that are effected by the cities demands? I for one would be more than happy to go door to door and advise counsel.
Comment by concerned citizen — April 9, 2008 @ 6:16 pm
concerned citizen,
It seems to me that if Barden is controlling law, it’s up to the City to do the right thing. The City needs to step up and say it’s up to the City to fix the sidewalks. I don’t object to the City using my tax dollars to fix other people’s sidewalks. I would object to the City banking my tax dollars so Bloem, Edinger, Goodlander, McEvers, Hassell, Kennedy, and Bruning are able to use my tax dollars to fund their self-aggrandizing projects while making honest people pay to have their sidewalks fixed by crooked contractors who overcharge. I object to the City’s requirement that each homeowner who needs to make repairs must get a $50 permit from the City. And I would get mad to find that our dishonest public officials were filing tax liens against honest people for overpriced and unnecessary sidewalk repairs while those same officials are wasting our money to improve their badly tarnished image.
Comment by Bill — April 9, 2008 @ 8:28 pm
Bill, Well said! I cannot elaborate much on this, except this,Wasnt the city requiring the trees to be planted in the parking strip in the first place that is growing under the sidewalks and rooting up the concrete?
Comment by cityspy — April 11, 2008 @ 9:39 am
cityspy,
Thank you. I don’t know if street trees were a city requirement, but I’ll bet some of the OpenCdA.com readers do. Part of the problem with any trees near sidewalks is the trees need to be properly selected, properly irrigated, and in some cases properly isolated in order for their roots to be directed downward rather than outward. The City has an arborist who ought to be giving that guidance out to anyone putting in street trees.
Comment by Bill — April 11, 2008 @ 11:25 am
I have heard it said several times that the citizens of Coeur d’Alene own the sidewalks and the city of Coeur d’Alene owns the dirt under them. Could this possibly be true? Please don’t refer me to any local dirt experts. I seriously want to know if that is how our local ordinance is written.
Comment by doubleseetripleeye — April 11, 2008 @ 2:29 pm
The city does require street trees, and the city Forester has a list of approved trees. Unfortunately, the beautiful tree canopies that shade our homes in the historical heart of Coeur d’Alene will not be replaced as they die off. You are correct, Bill, trees must be carefully selected and deep watered and possibly planted with a product that direct the roots downward.
Comment by Susie Snedaker — April 11, 2008 @ 4:03 pm
This is odd. I was told by the former owner that my property has “illegal trees” on it. The stinkin’ chestnut trees are supposedly not considered CDA Kosher. The owners had to petition the City to keep the trees after the neighbors complained about them. That’s the story I was told. When I asked my tree guy about them, he confirmed the story. And he said I just couldn’t pull them out; I’d have to plant replacements then petition the city to have “their” trees removed. I would like to understand how a tree can be illegal.
Comment by Dan — April 11, 2008 @ 4:37 pm
Maybe rather than “illegal” you can use the word “non-conforming”. The city likes that word. It works to show that the tree or house or whatever has been grandfathered in, but once it’s gone, it can’t be done that way again. I believe that some trees have much more invasive root systems than others so they are not on the approved list for swales or near sidewalks. Probably didn’t have that list when your house was built, Dan.
Comment by mary — April 11, 2008 @ 4:58 pm
The city adopted the first list of acceptable street trees from the Urban Forestry Committee a few short years ago. Your chestnut trees were excluded.
Comment by Susie Snedaker — April 12, 2008 @ 8:35 am
Absolutely some trees are notoriously detrimental with very aggressive root systems. The very common Benjamina Ficus tree is one such animal. Its roots attack water systems. Just one tree can tear apart an in ground gunite pool. On Balboa island, in Newport Beach, Cal they city removed and entire sreet of large ficus trees. They cost the city millions each year in infrastructure repairs. Notice that I said “cost the city” not the citizens.
Comment by Wallypog — April 12, 2008 @ 10:06 am
Wallypog, You are correct. Newport Beach maintains the sidewalks. I have yet to read of the city demanding the addition of sidewalks in areas where there presently are none.
Comment by Susie Snedaker — April 13, 2008 @ 8:33 am