I'm so relieved.
The city has put its sidewalk-shoveling rules into effect.
Public Works Director Dennis Schmidt declared this morning that sidewalks downtown and on campus need to be cleared by 8 a.m. Wednesday. Sidewalks not in compliance could be cleared by the city at the expense of the owner of the property.
The rules and a map of the affected areas are available on the city's Web site, www.ci.champaign.il.us.
They even have a map. We can now rest assured that the City is truly safe.
I hope they have enough common sense not to enforce this ordinance on residental areas of campus, which is a literal ghost town for the next month.
Hey but we got a reminder from TJ Blakeman that the earlier we remove the snow, the less the ice build up would be. That was awful sweet of him to remind us cuz I WAS born yesterday you know.. :-) And it's supposed to get to 44 Thursday, so it's a good think we'll all have had to bust our backs 24 hours earlier...
Having just come back from Danville where I had to walk in a very busy street in the downtown area because the sidewalk was piled high with not only the snow that had fallen but also the snow that had been plowed onto it from the street, I, too, am very grateful that Champaign has sidewalk shoveling rules in effect and unlike you, I don't mean that sarcastically.
if it were literally a ghost town, there would literally be ghosts.
I for one am incensed thawt naybody would have to shovel a sidewalk. why should they have to have safe areas around their businesses? businesses should be able to dump whatever they want on the sidewalks.
Since you're very happy about this ordinance, should the business owner also be responsible for removing from the sidewalks all of the snow that the city-owned plows pushed there from the city-owned streets?
"I for one am incensed thawt naybody would have to shovel a sidewalk. why should they have to have safe areas around their businesses? businesses should be able to dump whatever they want on the sidewalks."
Yes, because that's the argument here. Because the business owners actually control the weather, and they dumped the snow on those sidewalks. Not the city-owned snowplows. Damn business owners.
:rollseyes:
"should the business owner also be responsible for removing from the sidewalks all of the snow that the city-owned plows pushed there from the city-owned streets?"
Maybe the City can hire an out of state consulting firm to access the situation?? it shouldn't run more than 75 or 80 grand.
"Sidewalks not in compliance could be cleared by the city at the expense of the owner of the property."
That's pretty funny considering the City is the one that actually owns the sidewalks.
Remeber, it was Jerry, Vic and Karen that lead the charge to this liberal nanny state unfunded mandate on private businesses and homeowners in the designated areas. Remmber that next election, and for those of you business owners and homeowners, remember that when Jerry, Vic or Karen come around for campaign contributions.
Places with snow ordinances, yes, you have to have keep the sidewalk clear, including reshovelling it after a plow goes by, if they're still kicking up that much snow. This is in no way unique to Champaign.
It was interesting seeing which businesses bothered to shovel this time. As usual, the church on the corner of Green and Goodwin could stand to do some.
"Places with snow ordinances, yes, you have to have keep the sidewalk clear, including reshovelling it after a plow goes by, if they're still kicking up that much snow. This is in no way unique to Champaign."
It's also astonishly stupid. But we have lots of astonishly stupid ordinances that unnecessarily micromanage every aspect of life. After all, they're the government, and they're here to help.
"Remeber, it was Jerry, Vic and Karen that lead the charge to this liberal nanny state unfunded mandate on private businesses and homeowners in the designated areas."
I remember.
Remember what? I spoke at both the study session and the council meeting regarding the snow removal ordinance. Karen Foster and Vic McIntosh voted against the ordinance.
Well, IP, if people around here would actually SHOVEL their darn snow, there would be no need for the "nanny state." Fact is, they don't shovel voluntarily, and every year people are walking in the street.
Some places that never shovelled for years did shovel this time - whether directly due to the ordinance or not, I'm happy about that. Now if only the others would join in.
"Remember what? I spoke at both the study session and the council meeting regarding the snow removal ordinance. Karen Foster and Vic McIntosh voted against the ordinance."
Sorry - should have been more clear. I remember the Mayor pushing for this, and being disappointed.
Let me just get your position straight, do you...
a) think that business owners should shovel their walks, but that it shouldn't be mandated (apparently this hasn't worked, thus the ordinance)
b) think that the city should be in charge of shoveling all the walks (I wouldn't expect this argument since the government can't be relied on to do anything right - I can use sarcasm too :-)
c) think that walks should be shoveled if people feel like it (handicapped, elderly, and children - walk at your own risk!)
I'm having trouble understanding your point of view since the debate techniques you've used are solely based on sarcasm and calling things stupid.
I choose Option A.
Any business too dumb to shovel their own sidewalks must not have very many customers. (There are exceptions - such as the massive snowfall that we had last year. Of course, the cities were unable to plow the streets for several days after that snowfall as well.)
I could understand mandating this for apartment building owners/managers only.
I could see mandating this for all businesses and residences - I wouldn't agree with it, but it would at least be logically consistent.
But to mandate it only for businesses, when they're the only ones that already have an incentive to keep their walks clear (i.e., customers), makes absolutely no sense to me. And to do it in response to a 25-year storm which completely overwhelmed the snow removal capabilities of the cities, University and State? Stupid and illogical and reactionary.
What gives the government the legal right to direct private citizens to perform work on public property without payment for those services?
A private individual donated the street right of ways and the sidewalks to the City at their expense and the City Accepted all responsibilities for maintenance on those properties and improvements. It is right in the subdivision ordinances. The adjacent property owners do not have responsibility to remove and replace sidewalks or streets or any other infrastructure improvements within the right of way or public property.
How can government require work without payment for that work? What next, are they going to require private citizens to repair the streets in front of their homes and businesses? Where does it stop?
To that end, I am, and shall always remain;
Rex Bradfield
I agree that the inconsistency of doing this to businesses but not residences is appalling. typical government which is to heap more costs on "rich" business owners.
Jerry never had a job, except as a cop who walked around. He's never owned a business, not one with a storefront. He likes to smoke, but thinks drinks sold by shotgirls is morally wrong.
He is good at telling us what to do if it fits his lifestyle, not so good when freedom is at stake. I don't like hypocrites, I don't like nannys telling me what to do, and I especially don't like hypocritical nannys. Jerry's credibility and his likeability are sinking and so are his conservative values.
Every other Big Ten host city has a snow removal ordinance, so does every Illinois city with a comparable population that the city researched (they researched twelve cities). The ordinance is only implemented where needed, on campus and downtown.
At the expense of sounding like a liberal, shouldn't we care about handicapped people? The elderly? children? The University of Illinois is one of the most accommodating universities to handicapped people, attracting students with disabilities from across the nation. Why can't we shovel so that they go on with their daily lives? What about 40,000 students who walk to class? They prefer to walk on sidewalks over busy streets with MTD buses.
I believe this ordinance is pro-business; people will just go to North Prospect to shop if nobody shovels downtown. If you are a responsible business owner who shovels, and if your neighbors do not, your business is then hurt.
Since when it is terrible for a government to promote public safety and the public good? If the city enforces the ordinace in a reasonable and responsible fashion, then the ordinance will be great for Champaign.
Yes. Just like the homeowner has to remove from the front of his driveway not only the snow God put there but the snow the city plows put there in clearing out the street. It's a matter of public safety. Members of the public should not have to choose between getting hit by cars or falling on the snow and ice on the sidewalk and breaking limbs. I can see the argument against making homeowners clear their sidewalks; some of them are elderly and can't do it themselves nor afford to hire someone to do it. There is no reasonable argument against making businesses keep their sidewalks open for members of the public.
I don't know if you've noticed this IP, but the sidewalks are all connected. So, one business "too dumb to shovel" as you put it, who maybe doesn't care because it doesn't have many customers, ruins the way of safe passage for everyone.
News flash - the city requires you to mow your lawn, also, free of charge. If you don't, the city will do it and stick you with the bill, which will set you back quite a bit more than most lawn services charge. You have to mow the parkway also, even though (shock, horror) you're not allowed to put political campaign signs in it. Can't mow your own lawn? No sympathy. The city expects you to hire a service, or move somewhere (such as an apartment or condo) where it's not an issue.
If you don't like nannies telling you what to do, man up and do it before enough people complain and the city has to step in to force matters. As my mom would say, in the time you spent whining about it you could have done the job already. All I ever hear is "we should be able to shovel voluntarily!!111!11" but then every darn year, no one shovels the sidewalks by 99% of the businesses on Green through campustown and they turn into one sheet of disgusting ice. It's really bad when it starts melting and you have water on top of ice, then people walk in the street, which is already only 3 lanes, and it's a mess.
The concern about the elderly is a nice one. In that vein, though, it sure would be nice if the "Edge of Mall" folks at Oregon and Race could actually do something about their sidewalks. I realize they're not in Champaign (nor are they a business), but they sure don't shovel.
The apartments on the corner of Washington and Race, though, are exemplary - they always have someone out shovelling, usually before I get to mine, early in the morning.
On another topic - apartments which drain their sump pumps to the street during the winter! Ice city.
"Every other Big Ten host city has a snow removal ordinance, so does every Illinois city with a comparable population that the city researched (they researched twelve cities). The ordinance is only implemented where needed, on campus and downtown. "
Is this really your argument?
It is implemented where the City felt like implementing it, on the sidewalks that happen to pass in front of businesses rather than residences.
"Since when it is terrible for a government to promote public safety and the public good? If the city enforces the ordinace in a reasonable and responsible fashion, then the ordinance will be great for Champaign."
It would have been reasonable and responsible for the City to force residents to shovel in addition to businesses. Excessive as well, but at least intellectually consistent.
It would have been reasonable for the City to make some sort of good-faith exception for the fact that the City keeps plowing the snow right back up on the sidewalks.
It would have been reasonable for the City to realize that the City owns the sidewalks, and that the businesses and residents are only allowed to use them in ways that the City deems appropriate.
"There is no reasonable argument against making businesses keep their sidewalks open for members of the public."
There are several, some of which I've listed above. In addition, the sidewalks are the property of the City, not the property of the business.
I just read the ordnance on the city website, and I don't see anything that would indicate that it applies only to business owners and not to residential property. And I think that's a good thing--it's such a hassle, not to mention dangerous, to have to stomp through drifts of snow until it's packed down to a sheet of ice while trying to get from point a to b. Not everyone who lives/works/goes to school on campus has a car, and even if they did, you can't necessarily park near where you're going anyway. That leaves walking, which is done on sidewalks.
The problem was that people with properties downtown or on campus town that currently have no business tenants and therefore no customers or reason to shovel so they didn't. This was causing problems for other businesses and a danger to the public.
Here's the problem with mandating that the snow be removed by businesses. What is considered snow removal? Where are the specifications for the amount and final product of the snow removal?
Does it have to be removed to the sidewalk or just to 1/2 inch of the sidewalk?
Does it have to be salted after removal?
What becomes of the material removed, what percentage of the sidewalk area may be used for spoil snow storage?
What is the maximum height to which snow can be piled? When that height is exceeded what is done with the excess snow? Who's responsibility is the excess snow, if it is a result of many less than ordinance depth snows?
May snow be piled in the 25' clear zone for sight lines on corners? If not what do corner businesses have to do?
If the snow is removed and the City Plows shoot the street snow back onto the sidewalk who is responsible?
If the snow is completely removed and sidewalk is clear and overnight melted snow turns to "black ice" who is responsible for the removal of that material? Black ice is much more dangerous than un-scooped snow, who is responsible for those extreme conditions?
If the snow on city property is scooped and a person falls on the scooped area, who is responsible for any legal action resulting from the accident? Courts have historically found maiden snow is an act of God, scooped snow is the responsibility of the scooper!! Cities and governments are protected by sovereign rights and cannot be sued for plowing or scooping.
Personal or Business insurance does not cover the right of way areas on a property. Mine does not, it is specifically excluded.
What standard does the court use in determining damages, if there is no standard set by the City for the proper scooping and resulting product? (That is exactly what happened with the County Nursing Home Mold Clean Up, no written standard)
That is why this is a terrible ordinance, it does not cover any of the above.
So your business gets sued for a snow related accident on the city right of way and your insurance does not cover you for either damages or your attorney fees. You are better off not cleaning the sidewalk and letting the City Clean the walks and charge you. The City is responsible for the workmanship and they cannot be sued and are protected.
The Fine for not scooping is a better risk than someone falling and suing you while you are unprotected.
Nothing good about the way the Ordinance is written. If the City wants the sidewalks scooped, then charge a tax for scooping and do it themselves. That way the businesses are not exposed and the work is done more efficiently because of continuity. That is exactly why we do not scoop streets in front of the businesses. Tax money pays for plows and plows do it better and more efficiently and with no legal risk.
Historically government services work this way. Identify the necessary service. Identify and create the funding method for that service. Receive the revenues from the funding source and pay government employees to perform the service.
Since when did government get the right to free labor for a service deemed necessary?
To that end, I am, and shall always remain;
Rex Bradfield
The side walk has to be cleared 48 inches and yes you have to salt or put down sand if there is ice. The rest of the "above" mean little. The city says there is no greater legal risk for shoveling your sidewalk. Sure higher city staff to have sitting around incase it snows good idea.
I think it's important to know that when there is 30" of snow that we all get out there to clean our walks so that 80 year old people and parents with young children can go out for a walk in freezing weather. Sure, it doesn't make sense, but since when do arguments "for the children" make sense?
"Jerry never had a job, except as a cop who walked around."
What a bum! Cops have it easy and never take risks or make sacrifices for the rest of us.
Actually, I would like to see all of the nanny state yardwork ordinances repealed. I hope your anti-nanny stateness extends to non-Winter months...
Voting for the snow law were Jerry, Pirok, Dodds, LaDue and Gina Jackson. On Wednesday the contractors will be out shoveling the walks around the fraternity houses and rental residences on campus, whose occupants have left town for three weeks.
The bills will be sent, they will be difficult to collect, the sun will be out on Thursday, and the evidence that the contractors even performed the job will be gone.
What a dumb law.
The votes to pass this liberal nanny law makes sense. Jerry Schwieghart is a lot more liiberal anti-business than most people suspect, but it's showing now. At least with Dodds you know she's a lib, it just took a little longer to see just how lib Schweighart is.
It's a good thing the mayor race is non-partisan, because Schweighart would never get a nomination by the Republican Party, after what he has done to business in this town. Schweighart hasn't done much or even done anything I can see to hold the line on taxes so his closet liberal politics is hurting the average person too.
Schweighart has got to go.
That could be why in his first attempt againest Dan he lost,many business people and the gop were very dubious about Jerry in many ways,,,,,,,his true nature being one of them.
Why can't the City take a couple of MTD buses to the County Jail and use some of that inmate labor to clean the sidewalks? many of these people are nonviolent offenders and will be doing some kind of public service work in the future. So why not use them now???
Gregg that would be great if it worked,,,,,,,,but they might be trying to score on another kind of snow:)
I only wish that the city had to follow through with some promises of its own. Isn't it reasonable that the city should have to plow all the streets if they are asking property owners to follow through on their part? I was driving around last night and this morning and there are MANY city streets that have quite clearly not seen a snow plow yet. They are pasable only because they have had residential traffic driving on them. Doesn't the city have any obligations to the taxpayers?
Run,
Here is a suggestion, if you get sued make sure one of your defenses starts with....
"the City said there is no greater legal risk..."
count on the Judge saying...
"The City said it, but didn't write it?...Well in that case, this matter is dismissed because the City said so"
I didn't say hire additional permanent City staff to do the job, I said pay any necessary expenses for the shoveling out of the revenue source. If the City wants to hire part time college students, cool. If they want to pay overtime to existing staff, cool. There is no increased cost for the city, the revenue source provides the funds for the scooping. Part time people can be laid off when there is no work. Overtime can be stopped when there is no snow.
Why shouldn't every taxpayer in Champaign pay a little, after all, the arguments are help the elderly, handicapped, etc. We pay for other services for them out of tax money, why should businesses have to foot the entire bill? The businesses benefit, from ease of access, the people benefit even if they do not visit the businesses.
Or is it that "Free" is their favorite "F" word?
I noticed no one answered any of the other questions. If the answers are not in the ordinance, why not?
Lets say you are sitting in your car at a stop light, but 25' triangle sight lines around the corner are obscured by 4' high snow scooping spoil piles. You start to pull out and do not see a car that is skidding but legally entering the intersection and are severely injured and handicapped for life. The courts find that neither you or the other driver is at fault and no one is ticketed.
You would not have entered the intersection if you could have seen the other car and the other car would have honked if he saw you. 25' sight lines are specifically designed to prevent such occurrences and the piles of snow were the cause of the accident.
When your life is destroyed and the City says there is no greater legal risk to the "scooper" how would you feel? Or would you perhaps be suing the business owner who scooped the piles into those positions?
Perhaps you would rather have paid the City to properly scoop the sidewalks and thereby eliminate the obstructions.
To that end, I am, and shall always remain;
Rex Bradfield
"Doesn't the city have any obligations to the taxpayers?"
I'm sorry - I couldn't think of a snarky enough answer for your question. Somebody is going to have to help me with this one.
Champaign owner,
I totally agree. I've only been in Chambana for about a year and a half - I am from Northern suburb. I am absolutely amazed at the utter failure of the City to properly clear the roads every time it snows. Even 3-4 days after a snowfall you will see major streets that are not properly cleared.
Why don't we just ban snow? Or, building codes could be changed so that an awning must exist over all sidewalks to protect them from the snow. The awnings, at the option of the owner, can be removable. The awnings would only be required to be present from Nov 15 to March 20
Which roads are not yet cleared? I have not had a problem getting around on the major streets but have not been everywhere. There are some side streets that are a little snowy, but mostly because of cars parked on the street that have not moved in the last two days or terrible rail crossings that make it impossible to get the blade to the surface without damaging the road or equipment.
i say bah humbug to people in wheelechairs and 80-year-olds. real people don't ever walk or take MTD, that's what cars are for. we need more of this compassionate conservatism.
why have restaurant inspections? the market will take care of itself, after a few dozen people get really sick
Why don't we just ban snow?
Yeah, if the Champaign City Council would just ban snow, the shoveling wouldn't be a problem.
"after a few dozen people get really sick"
How many people get sick because they don't use their own judgment about a restaurant and trust the government health inspection certificate on the wall?
"Doesn't the city have any obligations to the taxpayers?"
I'm sorry - I couldn't think of a snarky enough answer for your question. Somebody is going to have to help me with this one.
Yes to obligate us to more taxes to pay for more services, like shoveling snow.
This is another case of the people that we elected (I didn't vote for all of them) coming up with what they came up with. I wanted something else also. I think I made most of the same points some of you have but not the lawsuit issue because they would most likely listen to the city attorney rather then I. The city of Chicago gets allot more snow so they are more prepared for it.
Rex, they already pay overtime to staff to clear the streets and yes it costs the budget more and if they have more snow then normal it affects the budget more.
their own judgment???? do cosumers get a kitchen inspection before every meal?
"do cosumers get a kitchen inspection before every meal?"
Does the government inspector? The fact is that for every violation found by an inspector, we know that the "health risk" was present for some time before that - unless you think that the inspector always stops by on the very first day that an employee doesn't wash his hands. So you still have the same dozens of people sick before the inspector comes around.
Run,
Dennis Schmidt is one of my best friends and I am well aware snow sometimes causes overtime, and it is budgeted accordingly. That is my point. If you had a part of the snow removal being paid by funds from a revenue source which is dedicated to the sidewalk snow removal, then the budget is not affected. It would be the same as the streets funds...............snows a lot, such is life.
"they would most likely listen to the city attorney rather then I"
You are correct if the "they" is the City Council, but you know, in a Court, the City Attorney opinion means diddly. The Court will decide the point of law, not the City Attorney. You also know, if called, the City Attorney will be very cautious and hedge his testimony so as not to imply any responsibility to the City.
We had this discussion a long time ago on my blog, and many who posted, cited the court cases and law that exempts the City from liability, but not the private individual.
What is amazing to me is the City wants to expose businesses to that long standing liability, when simple taxes and including sidewalks in the snow removal schedule is a more reasonable solution. How many businesses are going to be willing to stay in Champaign, if just one business get sued and loses its business because of sidewalk scooping? It is just not the correct way to do it.
The point is, why are business owners responsible for cleaning snow, that has always been the responsibility of government.
Identify the problem, create the revenue source and solve the problem.
What will the businesses be responsible for next in the right of way? Changing street lights? Replacing Street signs? Installing handicapped ramps in sidewalks? Installing audio warnings along the sidewalks for blind citizens? Caring for the trees along the sidewalks? Raking the leaves that are on the sidewalk? Spreading sand after rainstorms in the Summer to make the sidewalks less slick?
To that end, I am, and shall always remain;
Rex Bradfield
"why have restaurant inspections? the market will take care of itself, after a few dozen people get really sick"
caling something a strawman argument doesn't make it so.
perhaps you are limited in your ability to see the connection between 2 public safety issues
"perhaps you are limited in your ability to see the connection between 2 public safety issues"
Perhaps you are limited in your ability to realize that being opposed to one public safety regulation doesn't equate to being opposed to all of them.
When I went down Green Street about 4;15, there were a lot of sidewalks very poorly shoveled wih ice and snow remaining, and Walgreens and Garicas hadn't done anything at all.
Let's see if it matters. My guess, it won't, there will be "grace periods", and since predicted warm temperatures and rain will probably take care of the remaining ice and snow, the city won't have the time to get there and clear it, then billing the business.This is despite that a "violation" has occurred, It has just remediated itself (the same way as it was caused) naturally.
That's one big problem, enforcement. An unfunded mandate on businesses is bad enough, but unenforceable poorly-thought-out silly ordinances which only pander to some people, makes me think long and hard about the mayor and city council members who voted for it.
IP:
That's a mighty fine Strawman poster you've got there.
*Kem wanders off back to the den where the fallacy nerds lurk and snicker.
Kem
I noticed that 7 Saints has only shoveled to in front of the door of their upstairs tennant, leaving the three feet of sidewalk in front of the thennants door for the tennant to shovel. That and the pile of uncontained cardboard they put there.
"That's a mighty fine Strawman poster you've got there."
Thank you. I love google images.
The issue of being sued if you clear your sidewalk of snow is an urban legend as stated in the staff report sent to the city council regarding this issue. Perhaps you all should read it before you go off an a tirade on an issue about which you are totally wrong. The State of Illinois passed the Snow and Ice Removal Act in 1979 to eliminate this problem:
Any property owner who "removes or attempts to remove snow or ice from sidewalks abutting the property shall not be liable for any personal injuries allegedly caused by the snowy or icy condition of the sidewalk resulting from his or her acts or omissions unless the alleged misconduct was willful or wanton."
So as long as you do not shovel your sidewalk in such a way as to deliberately cause injury or harm you are okay. Mr. Bradfield should perhaps ask Dennis Schmidt about this instead of going on and on inaccuratly about liability. In fact, when I asked about this no one has heard of a single case of a property owner being sued successfully for shoveling their sidewalk.
Although I hate to defend Mr. Bradford, the actual text of the Snow and Ice Removal Act is as follows...
"Sec. 2. Any owner, lessor, occupant or other person in charge of any residential property, or any agent of or other person engaged by any such party, who removes or attempts to remove snow or ice from sidewalks abutting the property shall not be liable for any personal injuries allegedly caused by the snowy or icy condition of the sidewalk resulting from his or her acts or omissions unless the alleged misconduct was willful or wanton."
The key words here are, "residential property" and Mr. Bradford's comments were in reference to business properties.
I just wish the Memphis would have built a snowman on the sidewalk with a swazika arm ban,,,,and holding a leaf rake instead of snow shovel......and maybe a Rolling Rock in the free hand:)
Boggle...
--
Glock21 Op/Ed
Boggle yourself Glock my man:)
The key words here are, "residential property" and Mr. Bradford's comments were in reference to business properties.
Mr. Bradfield was also presenting alternative liability issues. While that statute seemingly covers your slip-and-fell-on-the-shoveled-sidewalk-and-now-my-back-hurts cases, it doesn't cover the other issues he brought up (e.g., blocking LOS at intersections). I think that his concerns are valid - aside from the personal injury liability for residential owners, neither the Snow and Ice Removal Act nor the shoveling ordinance provide enough details about the actual process.
I'm just waiting for the sidewalk ticketing agency to work with the plows, trying to get some extra money. Since the public caught onto the "same rates, higher assessed value" scheme, I'm sure the City is looking for another clandestine way to raise taxes without "raising" "taxes." Yeah, yeah, it's absurd, I know - but for some reason I can actually see it happening.
I was on Green Street in Campus Town around 9:00am this morning, I saw a lady with a video camera in front of Walgreens, this was no cheap video equipment She was using, the ice was at least 4 or 5 in. deep on the sidewalk! I saw no TV trucks in the area. could this be the "snow police"??? An earlier poster ask if any streets had not been plowed?? I saw several in the Lincolnshire area this morning, and Healey St. in front of the new Champaign Library was a mess!
The Ghost of Rod Serling will show up next,,,,,Walgreens should open up a bag of the snow melt they sell and put it out there,,that would be simple for them to do. Bruno states parking meters will be still be at 100% usage after increase in fees:)
Thanks anonymous, sorry to hear you hate to defend anything I say, but glad you did. I was aware of that Act and did not find businesses in there either so I posted. When I was managing a bar on campus a a long time ago, there were some law suits that arose because some did fall in front of businesses that scooped but not so good. For the life of me I can't remember who, but I think is was on 6th Street, maybe the House of Chin or the 2nd Chance. That was a while ago, maybe 35 years.
Thanks Thought,
My most prominent reason for posting is I can't understand why the City did not do things in the normal manner, as I have discussed. Mandating businesses to accept this expense, is an unfair burden when everyone benefits from their actions. Historically if everyone benefits, like roads, everyone pays a little for that benefit.
Additionally, there would be coordination between whoever works on the sidewalks for the City and the Street crews. Snow could be completely removed by loading into truck and if the melting material meets environment standards just dumping the snow in the big detention basin. It would be really nice to have clear sidewalks and intersections.
If the budget is too little, then the tax could be adjusted, if too much, it could be put in an interest bearing account until next year. Also the development ordinances for commercial subdivisions could be changed to include heated sidewalks.
Who knows?
Incidentally, my intersection example actually happened to me, although I was not injured, the LOS was blocked and a guy lost control because he could not see cross traffic and eventually crashed into me.
To that end, I am, and shall always remain;
Rex Bradfield
I was on Green Street in Campus Town around 9:00am this morning, I saw a lady with a video camera in front of Walgreens
Did she put a copy of today's paper on the sidewalk, a la hostage situations? I could see someone that obsessed with the shoveling ordinance going to such lengths. If not, I hope that Walgreen's disputes anything that comes about - anyone can readily change the time/date stamp on a camera.
I'm curious if La Due's apartment building shoveled the sidewalk - I know from experience that they didn't always do it.
I hope that Walgreens gets 5,000 tickets. When my wife and friends used to work there, the management would tow the cars of non-English speaking customers while they were in the store.
Anything fate that befalls that store is too good for it.
How would the manager know which car belonged to the non-English speaking customer? And how would they know that the non-English speaking customer could not speak English? And how long were these customers in the store? It usually takes a while for the tow-truck to show up, and it doesn't take too long to go through the whole Walgreen's. And when their cars were towed, did they need to find a translator to figure out what happened to their car? This is a truly unbelievable story.
When there were a lot of foreign customers, they would announce mass towings. At that point, most of the customers would come up to confirm that they were indeed still in the store. Many customers would wait in the store for their one-hour film to develop. It's also Champaign Urbana which, if you are at all familiar with, is not a particularly large metropolis, so it's pretty fast to get to anywhere, even from Reynolds, or whereever--I can't remember which towing service Walgreens uses.
The customers would then come up to the counter and try to ask what happened to their car. In most cases, they were pointed to the towing sign outside. In one particular case I remember, the husband had gone shopping elsewhere and he spoke more fluent English, so it was quite a scene and got rather heated.
My wife said that one of the managers in particular made no secret of her hatred for the foreign customers who came through Walgreens--especially ironic since that particular Walgreens is supported strongly by international students, especially during the summer months.
It may have changed in the interim, but I'm not really interested in patronizing that location.
If you want clarification, please ask civilly. There's no need to be nasty.
xian said,
"It may have changed in the interim, but I'm not really interested in patronizing that location."
How long ago was this? Did this happen personally to you? Did you personally witness this? Are you willing to see for yourself if it's changed?
You know, way back in 1941, in December, something bad happened, so I have no interest in patronizing that nation, or that one in Europe, too.
Our wheelchair customers still can't get to us as the streets are not clear enough for them to cross.
As for a funding source for snow removal: Try charging public property beer gardens a rate comensurate with the $100 a month parking places in the new parking deck.
How big is a parking space? 60 sq ft. ? and that's for an individual car. How about charge the businesses that want space to do business in the public way, $100/60sq ft. per month. That'd pay for snow removal, and probably more, even if you only charge them in the warm months.
So what is Walgreens supposed to do to ensure its spaces are used by customers only? You made it sound like there was some plot to screw foreigners by the Walgreens manager. What actually happened seems unfortunate but hardly some wrong that was committed by Walgreens. I can't imagine how you can be upset at Walgreens for doing what you described.
This discussion is really confusing to me. It seems to me that when I grew up every business owner in town went out early in the morning after a snow and cleared the walk. Or they had their hired high school kid do it for them. Simple enough, and a responsible, decent thing to do.
Why this hasn't been happening over the last 10-15 years is beyond me. I guess businesses don't want the "extra expense" of clearing their walks? But that just makes so little sense - part of being a respectable business owner is helping to improve and "keep up" the town. It seems to me the failure on the part of many business owners to get out of bed and clear their walk has led to this decision. Perhaps the modern-day business person just doesn't have the same ethics.
On the other hand, I hardly think the "invisible hand" of the free market will come down on business owners who don't shovel their walks. What most likely happens is that people just put their heads down and walk through the snow to get to their destination. Kind of like the argument that business who don't allow smoking will do so much better than the businesses that do so *presto!* there is no need for smoking bans. This kind of logic just doesn't play out in the real world.
Try charging public property beer gardens a rate comensurate with the $100 a month parking places in the new parking deck.
This person is obviously not familiar with "Creative Class" economic theory. Dontcha know how "cool" and "hip" it is to sip a $7.00 beer at a table on the sidewalk? Giving these bars and restaurants public space to allow their patrons to feel cool helps spur economic development downtown. Haven't you noticed how thriving things are? What with parking rates going down because of the influx of "Creative Class" tax dollars, and that new parking garage that was paid for with the massive surplus of "Creative Class" tax dollars and will now be free for every citizen.
Oh, right.
"On the other hand, I hardly think the "invisible hand" of the free market will come down on business owners who don't shovel their walks. What most likely happens is that people just put their heads down and walk through the snow to get to their destination. Kind of like the argument that business who don't allow smoking will do so much better than the businesses that do so *presto!* there is no need for smoking bans. This kind of logic just doesn't play out in the real world."
And why is that? Nobody's ever satisfactorily explained why the rules of logic shouldn't apply in these two situations.
If a customer has a choice between shopping at a store that is easily accessible, why wouldn't they choose to shop there rather than the store with the entrance that is a slip-n-slide?
If the overwhelming majority of people prefer non-smoking businesses, why wouldn't non-smoking businesses do better than smoking businesses?
I'm a pretty big believer in the idea that the individual choices of consumers are efficient, and that those individuals almost always make decisions that match their own interests and preferences. Why do you argue, in these two cases, that they would consciously choose otherwise? Where is the logic in that?
Why do you argue, in these two cases, that they would consciously choose otherwise? Where is the logic in that?
The concept of the free market is dependent on the idea of unlimited and uninhibited consumer choice. Without the ability of a mass of consumers to legitimately choose something other than the nefarious product or company, the free market concept collapses.
In both of these cases we are talking about public health issues. I won't get into the living wage issue and how that impacts the "free" market. Let's just discuss the issue of public health. If you are a student living in campustown and you need a prescription filled you are going to end up at Walgreens. Why? Because there are no other choices that are available to you. It is not reasonable, for example, to walk or take the bus to the Osco at the end of Green St. just because Walgreens hasn't cleared the sidewalk. No, the rational consumer is going to suck it up, try to get through the ice and get the prescription filled. The issue of choice is mute, and the free market is unable to solve the problem. Businesses will continue to cut costs and produce crappy service/products and the consumer has little choice but to go along with the scheme.
This happens all the time. In fact, it is hard to analyze the American economy today and come away with the idea that it is really is a free market that is driven by consumer choice. Quite the contrary, in my opinion. Or, to be more to the point, this sidewalk issue would have never arisen if the market had responded to consumer demand. You are going to be hard pressed to find one person who desires to walk over ice to patronize a business. If that is the case, yet the government had to intervene to get the businesses to clear the ice, that proves quite clearly that the free market has not worked in this case. And in that case, with public health at risk, it is legitimate for the government to intervene and force the issue.
But that's just my opinion, I'd be happy to hear your take in more detail.
"The concept of the free market is dependent on the idea of unlimited and uninhibited consumer choice."
I don't think so. Most adults realize that there is no such thing as unlimited choice.
What you are saying is that the market doesn't think that cleared sidewalks are worth very much. Well-meaning liberals think that cleared sidewalks are very important. Therefore there must be a problem with the market!
The "market" responds to things that matter to consumers. If Walgreens cut off the thumb of each customer (or even just each non-English speaking customer), people wouldn't keep going there, and in a very short amount of time (certainly faster than any government panel could act) there would be an alternative drug store close by.
As long as the government isn't involved, a business can never enslave its customers. There are plenty of greedy capitalists who would be willing to be just a little less evil to their customers if it means they will make money.
The real problem is that the collective priorities of consumers does not agree with your liberal sensibilities. So while consumers place a low value on cleared sidewalks (or more precisely, consumers would rather walk through snow to get cheaper things than have a nicely shoveled walk and pay more), liberals place a high priority on them (perhaps because consumers must pay the price for the cleared walks, but well-meaning, third-party liberals don't have to make such a compromise.)
D. Boon,
You make a very good point. When consumers choose a good or service, there are many factors which play into that choice. This means that the consumer has to prioritize all the factors and sometimes one factor will trump another factor. In your example, location trumps an uncleared sidewalk for a student who lives at 5th and Healy and doesn't own a car.
There are very few, if any, truly free market driven consumer decisions. It's like in my ECON classes in college. To demonstrate a partiular theory, the professor would qualify the example with the statement, "all other factors remaining unchanged". In reality, there is no way for all other factors to remain unchanged. Unless Walgreens builds two stores next door to each other and then one clears the sidewalk and the other doesn't, it is impossible to say that the market will take care of those businesses which don't clear the sidewalk. There are too many factors which weigh into a consumer decision.
So what is Walgreens supposed to do to ensure its spaces are used by customers only? You made it sound like there was some plot to screw foreigners by the Walgreens manager. What actually happened seems unfortunate but hardly some wrong that was committed by Walgreens. I can't imagine how you can be upset at Walgreens for doing what you described.
That particular manager, as I said, made it no secret that she was interested in towing the cars of those who couldn't understand the announcement. The lot was not full, and there was no other reason to do mass towing.
Did I personally witness it? I witnessed that manager making disparging comments about foreign customers, for example complaining about their English when she couldn't understand the question, "Where batteries?"
It's funny that this practice of selective shopping is being attacked in a discussion about the free market. In a true free market society, the only way that intentional racist discrimination is prevented is by not spending money to promote it. To attack a practice is to promote hatred and racism.
There are plenty of other drug stores to go to when I'm in CU.
D. Boon:
Unfortunately, the simple fact that the vast majority of the students are used to shlepping it through the ice and snow means that they're not likely to avoid places just because they haven't shoveled their sidewalks. They're used to it. It's a nuissance, but it's life.
The values that you're looking for are certainly there in some neighborhoods-- I have a couple of friends up in the Lincoln Park area, and the sidewalks are shoveled. We have a family tradition of going window shopping on Christmas Eve, starting at the old Fields building in downtown Chicago and ending with a trip up to the top of the John Hancock building, and the sidewalks are certainly shoveled. Basically, what I'm saying here is that business owners in areas where pedestrian traffic is high among people who aren't a captive audience, or people who aren't primarily students, are more likely to keep their front doorsteps inviting. I grew up in Oak Park without a car. The shopping district was always shoveled, but the streets to the grocery or to school never were. Why? Cars. People drive everywhere instead of walking, and the momentary inconvenience of the slip and slide isn't such a huge issue when you're not out hoofing it everywhere you go.
But yeah, a little small town charm from business owners who want parents carying babies, the elderly, the disabled, and everyone else to feel comfortable making their way to the front door is nice. Three cheers for the business owners (and random good Samaritans like the guy that always comes by and does the sidewalk on the West side of northbound Neil Street) that do it just because they feel it's the right thing to do.
Kem
We do shovel the walks at Mike N Molly's, all the way down to the concrete, and we salt...We always have. My point was that it hardly helps the wheelchair patrons, when they can't cross the streets because the City plows leave 4" of slush along the side streets. Where I get upset is where they MANDATE that we maintain the sidewalks ( their property )at our private expense, and then don't adequately clear the streets(their property) at their (the public's) expense. The same patrons traverse both.
And as far as the public beergardens, my point was that YOU the individual consumer, pay more to park your car, to go "consume" than the bar with publicly paid for and maintained space pays for the right to sell and profit from their product on public land. AND if that were reversed, their would be adequate funds for the city to clear the walks, at least in the downtown area. As someone who pays for my own beergarden, I promise you that not one beergarden would close from that. If that were the case, I'd have given up and built apartments on my beergarden by now.
I today recieved a notice on the door of my business from the City of Champaign. The notice informs me that:
1) I must remove snow, ice and freezing rain (?) from the "sidewalk on their [my] property".
2) I will be billed an administrative fee ($100) and costs if I do not remove snow, ice and freezing rain within 48 hours of a declaration by the director of public works that the snow removal requirements are in effect.
I find this very entertaining, and I can't wait to sue them. Problems:
1) The sidewalk is not on my property. Sidewalks are, more or less by definition, part of the city right of way.
2) Will they *really* enforce this uniformly? The U of I has a HORRIBLE snow removal program/record. If the City fails to enforce the ordinance against UIUC, then they'll place themselves in legal jeopardy. If they do enforce the ordinance against UIUC, will they charge an administrative fee of $100 per building, or for the whole campus? If just one fee for the whole campus, that would be a great deal for UIUC - snow removal management for $100 per snowfall, but it would be a horrible deal for someone with a 500 sf business - in other words, it would be totally inequitable.
I remember when Champaign had their first rental lot on Green Street, where the DI building is now. They gave out PAPER stickers and insisted that they be affixed to the BUMPER. I, realizing what a stupid idea that was, affixed it to the inside of the rear window. I was repeatedly ticketed. So I put the f-ing sticker on the bumper, and it lasted about a month. When I asked for a replacement sticker, the dumbs**its said I had to bring in the old sticker to get a new one. Never mind that the only glue was left!
Champaign is run by morons.
So while consumers place a low value on cleared sidewalks (or more precisely, consumers would rather walk through snow to get cheaper things than have a nicely shoveled walk and pay more), liberals place a high priority on them (perhaps because consumers must pay the price for the cleared walks, but well-meaning, third-party liberals don't have to make such a compromise.)
Wow, that's an awful lot of assumptions in one sentence. I don't know any consumers who place a low value on cleared sidewalks. Quite the opposite, in fact. Take a poll. Ask consumers: would you rather walk into a business through a thick sheet of ice or along a cleared sidewalk. Hmmm. I wonder what the result would be? And who are these "third-party" (what does THAT mean?) "liberals" who aren't going to pay these higher prices from making an employee shovel a sidewalk? Furthermore, do you really believe the price of a bag of Cheetos is going to be raised because an employee at Walgreens has to spend 15 minutes shoveling a sidewalk?
Come on. The idea that there is a free market solution to this problem is just not realistic, just as it is not realistic to believe prices will be raised because someone has to shovel a sidewalk. If the people at Mike n Mollys have been shoveling their walks for years then this new law is meaningless to them. If a business owner has been too lazy and/or irresponsible to clear the walk in front of their business then it is time they stepped up and did their part. Simple enough.
Kem - I lived in Chicago for years and visit dozens of times over the course of a year. I'll be up there again this weekend and I have little doubt that the sidewalks in front of Reckless Records will be nicely cleared. That business seems to be doing just fine and they still have the lowest prices on the best LPs in Chi-Town. But that's just my opinion.
"Take a poll. Ask consumers: would you rather walk into a business through a thick sheet of ice or along a cleared sidewalk. "
Of course, if you took a poll, which would you rather have, a hamburger or a Rib-eye steak, you'll get different results than if you asked people what they want to BUY.
"I don't know any consumers who place a low value on cleared sidewalks."
Well open your eyes. Every customer who steps through snow to shop are making that statement loud and clear.
Third party liberals are people like you, who seem to have a problem with the arrangement that a store and its customers have, which is snow-covered sidewalks and cheaper prices.
And I'm not saying there is a free-market solution to the problem; I'm saying that according to the market, there IS NO PROBLEM. The "problem" exists only in the over-sized hearts and under-sized brains of liberals.
The U of I actually does quite a good job clearing their walks - if you want a better walking commute, choose the side of the street with mostly U of I properties whenever possible. The main non-shovelling culprits are certain businesses, most apartments owned by huge chains, and... churches. The sidewalks by the Etc coffeehouse in the Methodist church on the corner of Green and Goodwin (meaning, ALL of the sidewalk on that side of Goodwin northward after the nicely shovelled U of I section ends) is atrocious. (I realize they're not in Champaign, but my complaints about downright lazy inconsiderate lack of shovelling extends throughout the metro area.) Certain businesses on Sixth (the Sixth street side of Espresso Royale, and that "The Village" apartment rental office) are similarly terrible.
At any rate, obviously it's no problem to force the businesses to shovel. If they really really desperately want to not shovel, they can cough up the fine, or they can move their business to another city - it's all about choices, right? Same story with the parking, really. It's obviously not too expensive if you're still paying for it.
Walgreen's did in fact have an inches-thick layer of solid ice on the walk yesterday, I almost fell on it. They had two youngish employees out there, first with the salt, and then with the ice blade trying to chop up the ice, and yes, they were complaining. Just think, if they'd only shovelled it the day it fell, rather than waiting for 10934109361 people to tamp it down into the solid ice layer, they could have saved some effort. It's not as if they're not open weekends, even.
today's News Gazette (I don't know how to post a link) says Mayor Prussing is going to propose a city-wide shoveling ordinance for Urbana. It will cover residences as well as businesses.
http://www.news-gazette.com/news/local/2007/12/20/snow_patrol_begins
Monson's NG story
If you don't clear your sidewalk and opt to let the city do it, "We'll make sure it's real expensive for you". Nice.
With Mayor Prussing jumping on the bandwagon, it's a ringing endorsement of Schweighart's conservative politics.
I think Jerry belongs in Urbana as a democrat precinct committee-person.
Of course, if you took a poll, which would you rather have, a hamburger or a Rib-eye steak, you'll get different results than if you asked people what they want to BUY.
Ok, so that makes zero sense. The issue isn't preference - the issue is public safety. Are we talking about the same thing?
Third party liberals are people like you, who seem to have a problem with the arrangement that a store and its customers have, which is snow-covered sidewalks and cheaper prices. ... The "problem" exists only in the over-sized hearts and under-sized brains of liberals.
Yes, liberals are all very stupid people. And no doubt there was never a problem to begin with. You know what must have happened? Someone must have woke up one morning and decided to pick on the poor business community and this is what they came up with. I am sure it has nothing to do with public safety (liability) issues, and nothing to do with irresponsible business owners. It is just a conspiracy by stupid liberal people. Makes sense to me - who doesn't want to slip on ice or have a bunch of snow up their pants when shopping?
D.Boon: Give your over-sized heart and undersized brain a rest. When I'm laying in my hospital bed after slipping on the ice and suffering a concussion, I will heal faster knowing that I saved a nickel on my rib-eye steak sandwich.
from the "free-market" perspective, this issue is complicated by the fact that a sidewalk in front of a downtown business is not only an entry to the store, but also a path to something else down the street. So every business on a street gets punished by one guy that doesn't clean his walk. Also, businesses gain no value in cleaning the walk for people that just want to walk past their store from a bus stop on the corner.
Since we are talking about our "dense urban cores", where we have massive amounts of pedestrian traffic, maybe we need to figure a way to tax transactions or people or property downtown to pay for the city to just clean all these critical pathways.
umm...but the city website says that businesses must shovel *their property*. sidewalk belongs to city. so businesses need not shovel the sidewalk.
is the city attorney really as stupid as she seems?
anon 4:19, "she" is a he, name is Fred.
I'm sure THEY aren't so stupid as to confuse who they are.
"past their store from a bus stop on the corner."
Clearly, MTD should bear the burden of shoveling sidewalks if there is a bus stop anywhere nearby. But Costello is too busy serving on the board of DI and now the Police Review Board to consider the impact all his G.D. bus stop pedestrians are having on others.
Is urine an acceptable ice removal method?
To that end, I am, and shall always remain;
Rex Bradfield
Is urine an acceptable ice removal method?
It's worked OK for me with snow. Would you like me to come potty in your yard?
Naw, thanks for the offer, but I don't scoop my yard.
But here is a word of caution, never write your name, it can be kind of incriminating.
To that end, I am, and shall always remain;
Rex Bradfield
"D.Boon: Give your over-sized heart and undersized brain a rest."
Unnecessary.
Speaking of peeing on things... whatever happened to the proposed fountain in downtown Champaign?
You know Pundit that back in the great Republican era of the 50's business owners would have automatically shoveled the snow for their customers. I mean let's think about it. Would you rather have the government trying to do something that it clearly incapable of doing like universal healthcare or effectively managing a social safety net? No let them do things only that they are capable that people used to do without being asked. Enforce the sidewalk cleanup you moron.
I kinda hate to respond to that troll, but I will.
For 1) It's not Pundit's job to enforce any law... duh
2) It'd probably be less of an issue if the State would add businesses to the Snow Shoveling liability exemption. But the tort lawyers would probably fight that.
3) the 50s were an era when problems were solved without going to court, the ever increasing litigiousness of our society makes taking on liability a freaking scary proposition. Back then, the economy was on a huge growth cycle...how could it not.. It was a time when growth was always assumed to be the case...It is not that way anymore. Minimum wage increases are HARD on small businesses, and pension funds go broke. We ALL have to look after our own interests.... welcome to today's society..
Business insurance does NOT extend to the public way.... and I'm not sure if it even can, and the city has effectively forced businesses to extend their liability beyond their ability to be insured against losing said business to some injured party who decides to sue. And that's scary. That's why when we remove snow ( and I hire somebody, I don't do it myself) we do it all the way the the concrete.. I wanna do the polite thing but I wanna insure that my good deeds DO GO unpunished., but my insurance DOES NOT cover the sidewalk.
It's a bit different when businesses pay for the priviledge to do business on the public way. Their insurance will then cover that, and the City demands to be added as a co-insured to to that policy at no cost to the city, but that's fine, that's what all landlords do when they have a business renting from them.
What I don't like, is when businesses do the POLITE thing, and then have it become DEMANDED of them. As soon as you try to be proactive, and give yourself a buffer, there's NO BUFFER it becomes a demand. And soon the business owner becomes cynical, and bitter...and then it becomes "I'll do the bare minimum and let them spend the money to come after me, Screw 'em. And then I'll push the system, and drag my heels, and tell the system 'It owes me'" And that's a no win situation..
It feels good to do nice things for one's patrons, and it's nice to know it's appreciated, and they say Thank You, to which I respond "You're welcome, and Thank You for your patronage." That leaves all parties on an up-note. Win-Win yeah!
What sucks is when I have an off day, or the hired help has an off day, and can't do the nice thing as soon, to have the patrons call me a lazy miserly bastard, get a fine, and passersby who don't patronize me tell me "You owe me a clean sidewalk, I'll sue, or I'll turn you in to the city". Or be bilittled, by passersby, because I didn't hire my guy to plow the entire block.
It also sucks when I shovel my walk, my neighbors shovel theirs, but the street in front of my place is covered with slush, or ice, and still as treacherous as anything. So the entity that demands me to have a clean walk, doesn't hold up their end of the deal, and clean the street!
BUT I WILL GIVE the public works this much, WHEN I called and said "the street is clear of cars, now would be a good time to plow", they have come and done it. And it is a situation where they throw the snow on the walks and we throw it back in the street, and until it melts it's in someone's way....
It's ALWAYS something, and you can't keep saying that somebody else owes you an easy life.
"It also sucks when I shovel my walk, my neighbors shovel theirs, but the street in front of my place is covered with slush, or ice, and still as treacherous as anything. So the entity that demands me to have a clean walk, doesn't hold up their end of the deal, and clean the street!"
This is a very good point, and a major sore spot for me. The City of Champaign is completely incompetent. Run by boobs with consistently bad attitudes; people who belong behind the counter at Burger King. They can't do a d**n thing right. And here they are demanding that I shovel my sidewalk immediately and perfectly every time or face a fine.
I have just five words to say to that: F**k Y*u you miserable bas***ds!
The only way I would support the ordinance is if CITY COUNCIL weiners had to shovel the walk around city hall.
I'm going to shovel my walk in a manner that complies with the law but renders the walk impassable.
Instead of shoveling the walk like this:
============================ 48" wide
I'm going to shovel it like this:
==== ==== ==== ====
==== ==== ====
There is nothing in the ordinance that says the shoveing has to be contiguous, just 48" wide.
I hope the readers are reading what Mike has to say about this issue (and indirectly about others) and take note.
He is right on point, I have been saying this all the time, and no one listens. This is not a slippery slope we are on, it is a cliff and will soon be a real problem.
Mike's views are exactly what happens, and exactly why I am running for Mayor of Urbana. This has to change and some reason be back in government. My God, Prussing wants EVERYONE to be forced to scoop their walks.
I am going to open a snow scooping business in Urbana, and make sure I am at the top of the call list on the City rolls for between that and my line painting business that paints the 15 ft line outside each public business so the police can see smoking violations, I should be rich soon. And at the expense of the general public too, what a gig.
To that end, I am, and shall always remain;
Rex Bradfield
Dear (attorney):
I received the notice I faxed to you when I arrived at my office around 11 am on 12/20.
Around 3 pm, the building's owner salted the walk, which was packed ice in the trafficked area.
City shoveled my snow after 4 pm today.
Questions I have:
- Can the city force me to maintain city property? If they can make me shovel snow on the city right of way, what's to prevent them from next requiring that I replace light bulbs in the street light outside my office or empty the public trash receptacle on the sidewalk?
- The $100 fee is supposed to cover their costs, but I doubt it costs $100 to call up someone with whom they've prearranged to shovel snow. If the ordinance does not mention a punitive fine, is it legal for city to charge a fee which is punitive in its nature?
- What is to prevent city from overpaying (cousins and such) for snow removal which is billed through to business owners? Is there a bidding process? Is there *any* effort to keep prices reasonable?
- I saw a bunch of young people doing snow removal work for the city (on channel 15). Do these kids the city is employing have Worman's Compensation insurance?In other words, is the city engaging in illegal labor practices? Are they bonded or do they have any form of liability insurance? Does the city require a certificate of insurance from all snow removal subcontractors?
- If the city identifies my walk as needing shoveling at 8 am, but the situation is remedied (ie, by salting) at 3 pm, but they've called someone to shovel at 9 am, am I obligated to pay when they show up at 4 pm (after the problem is gone)? They seem to have shoveled my walk to it's full width (about 8') even though 4' was clear after salting.
- If ordinance calls for the walk to be cleared to 48" wide and the city clears it to 96" wide, am I obligated to pay the whole bill, or some percentage (say 50%) of the bill?
I would like to file suit when I get my snow removal bill. Seems like a nice little dec. action.
Why did Jerry join with the 4 Democrats to pass this ordinance anyway?
09:13 AM, Anonymous
Not to mention it is not your snow and ice. Why aren't they dunning the churches too, after all their "head man" is responsible for this mess?
To that end, I am, and shall always remain;
Rex Bradfield
Rex is running for Mayor of Urbana?
What is Barickman thinking?????
Good letter in today's N-G, http://www.news-gazette.com/news/opinions/letters/2007/12/21/sidewalk_gets_cleared_then_refilled_by I'm sure this happed hundreds of times after the recent snow.
Anonymous,
Thanks for your support.
I was kind of fed up with Prussing violation State law and increasing her salary during her term. Or spending $15,000 of taxpayers money and then throwing it away. So rather than bitch, I will run.
Hey money is not snow or turkeys, but it might be just as important.
But this blog is not the place for that political discussion.
To that end, I am, and shall always remain;
Rex Bradfield
Rex: Provide more details about
I was kind of fed up with Prussing violation State law and increasing her salary during her term. Or spending $15,000 of taxpayers money and then throwing it away. So rather than bitch, I will run.
Michael Fuerst
And 1 week later it's all gone... yeah this threat of City "over" charging for removal was worth all that?!?!... 48 hours to remove it or face the City abating it, and 48 hours lafter that, ALL GONE.
This isn't always the case, agreed, but this situation didn't warrant all the hubub... but NOW it's LAW.... such overkill.... silly
It is a particularly difficult law with which to comply. I am going to visit my mother in Chicago for a week. Please tell me who I call to contract with to shovel my walks while I am gone, in case it snows?
Just "hire it done" isn't just a matter of money. Its a matter of finding a reliable service or neighbor kid. Do I pay the neighbor kid in advance in case it snows? How do I know she shoveled like she said she would?
When I spend a week at my mother's in June, I just mow the lawn before I leave. Can I shovel my walk before it snows?
You've heard of carbon trading? I propose a system of snow trading to solve the issue raised by Frosty.
Say you're leaving town for a week and you're concerned it will snow. You call the city, and they allocate a certain number of cubic feet of snow to remove from some public area, say in front of city hall. You go shovel the snow, and they give you a paper sticker saying that society owes you n cubic feet of snow removal. You stick the sticker to something on your front lawn, where it will be visible.
Then, when it snows, the snow police come out and clear your walk. If the cubic feet removed is less than your credit, they deduct from your credit. If the cubic feet removed is more than your credit, you receive a bill for $100,000 plus the cost of removing the extra cubic feet, so as to prevent scofflaws from earning inadequate snow credits.
Here's an alternate idea: the busybodies on city council could just F*** Off
9:27 Anonymous
Too funny.
Michael,
I will on my blog.
Hey, on a side note, I remember seeing you say you umpired baseball when Matt H. was playing little league.
Did you also umpire fast pitch softball? Did you know Gene Lash?
I pitched fast pitch for about 20 years and Gene was a very good friend of mine.
Give me someplace else to post about this, if you will, I don't want to clutter up this thread with a not related conversation.
To that end, I am, and shall always remain;
Rex Bradfield
Private Property - I don't know about you, but some of us work for a living, and had to pick our way over crazy show and ice covered streets all last week, every morning and evening. I mean, really, you might as well say "well, it'll melt by summer, so what's the big deal?" A week is a long time, when you're walking in the stuff.
If anything, I think the waiting until Monday to tell people they needed to shovel, then giving them 48 hours, was the ridiculous part. My sidewalk was shovelled once the snow quit falling. I have a narrow parkway, so yes, the plows kicked some back - but that's loose snow, so yes, I went and shovelled it back off again, it's not rocket science, nor was it hard to do. Shovelling gets hard when you wait so long that hordes of people have tamped it into a sheet of ice.
When you're gone, you get your neighbor to do it, most places. But either way, the main problem is NOT a family who happens to be on vacation once in a while on a residential street. The problem is businesses who chronically refuse to shovel their sidewalks on busy thoroughfares, year after year after YEAR. That, and entire neighborhoods whose families NEVER shovel - oh, they shovel the little path to their SUV, but nothing else, and given the fresh tire tracks in and out, it's quite obvious they're not on vacation - that plus the lights on in the house.
But akibare,
You chose to shovel, as do I. If the City has determined that unshoveled walks on City property present a hazard to the general public, why doesn't the City solve the problem in the same manner as they have solved problems for years. Identify problem, create funding method and shovel snow with those funds.
I chose to scoop and don't mind that someone benefits from my efforts, again it is my choice.
But the City entered into an agreement with the original property owner of the subdivision or original town, that if that property owner would supply the city with streets, storm sewers, sanitary sewers, sidewalks and the property on or in which they are situated, the City would be responsible for the maintenance of that property and those improvements for the good of the general public. All that is given to the City at no cost to the City. A pretty damned good deal.
Consider that Sidewalks are about $6.s.f. $30/L.F. for a 5' walk, Streets and curbs are about $28/lineal foot (L.F.), depending on the size storm sewer is about $50/L.F. including manholes and structures, and sanitary is a little more because of depth, maybe $60/L.F. The common right of way width is 66' and land is going for about $35,000/acre or $0.80/S.F, or $53/L.F. The City got land and improvements given to it amounting to around $221/L.F. in a 66' right of way. and that doesn't include the engineering necessary to design those improvements. Lot sizes vary, but a common lot width was also 66' along the front so the City received $14,586 of free improvements per Lot and all they had to do was maintain it.
Instead of owning up to the deal for all these free improvements, the City of Champaign now wants a select group of people to maintain all that free sidewalk and improvements. Prussing is thousands of time more greedy, she wants EVERYONE to give free time to the City to maintain something that was free to the City.
Very simply, if it is important enough to and the City believes it is a hazard to the general public, then tax the general public and take care of it in the same manner they do the streets, storm sewers, sanitary sewers, etc. Everyone benefits, so why doesn't everyone have to pay just a little? You have employees cleaning the streets under the direction of the public works department and a procedure will be developed that cleans every area uniformly and in a timely manner.
A private citizen gave the City something for free and the City looks a gift horse in the mouth and doesn't own up to the deal.
That is the issue here. It is not whether it is necessary, or beneficial, the City has already made that decision. They just want it for free. (My favorite "F" word) If any of the businesses try to build on or too close to the City property, they will not be allowed to or fined, so the City does not give the public free land, why should the public be required to give the City a service for free?
The real reason is, this is something that is attractive to a significant number of voters because they are getting something for free. The businesses do not have enough votes to make a difference in any election so they are sacrificed without risk for the votes. If the City did it in a proper manner, they would have to tax everyone, and most would say, screw you, I will scoop my own walk, rather than pay you to do it or I will vote you out because you taxed me for snow scooping.
When viewed in that light, it becomes more clear why the City is doing this, politics again.
To that end, I am, and shall always remain;
Rex Bradfield
While in Champaign there are zone's for shoveling, in Urbana all the property owners will have to shovel. While I understand your point about the sidewalk in the right of way of the city being the cities it is still however the responsibility of the property owner to shovel. I do however think that your statement that the city is getting something free is like the argument I am making about the state not paying its part of the state and University employees’ pension and using that savings for general fund spending which saves the rest of the taxpayers from their responsibility.
It'll be interesting to see what the outcry is, when Urbana Rental Residents receive an extra Utility bill.. The shoveling bill...No doubt they will claim that the landlord owes them to do this for free... at 3am AND 6am AND 9am.
A big concern I have is that Yellowstone National Park is actually a mega-volcano caldera. If it blows it wiill cover even Champaign in ash. This probably won't happen soon, but without a sunset clause the snow ordinance goes on forever. But nothing is written into the ordinance about ash, when the giant cladera finally does blow.
Is ash covered, or should there be an amendment to th